22:04:34 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg-special 22:04:38 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/06-vcwg-special-irc 22:04:38 Hi hi! Is this happening? 22:04:46 Zakim has joined #vcwg-special 22:04:52 zakim, start the meeting 22:04:53 RRSAgent, make logs Public 22:04:54 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent 22:05:05 meeting: VCWG Special Topic Call 22:05:12 chair: Brent Zundel 22:05:51 Thanks @shigeya! 22:06:16 The special topics URL in the calendar was the other https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89771982204?pwd=YVh1dURSWjdaRlJnTWZBbDUvdEg3Zz09 - it presented holding message waiting for the host to let people in. 22:06:54 brent has changed the topic to: we are here: https://mit.zoom.us/j/99464040866?pwd=QUpZSnRZU3FWMmRjcE9ZWWhQZ1ViUT09 22:07:04 present+ 22:07:09 present+ 22:07:22 present+ 22:07:29 present+ 22:07:32 present+ 22:07:42 present+ 22:09:37 Isn't that an oxymoron (yoga-ing too hard)? 22:10:30 topic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc 22:11:14 Orie_ has joined #vcwg-special 22:11:18 present+ 22:11:32 We need a label called "CR Blocker" 22:11:50 We already have labels for "Post CR" 22:12:10 scribe+ 22:12:19 present+ 22:12:55 brent: We are going through issues today... we need to decide if we are going to do this before CR... or during CR. 22:13:13 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/875 22:13:35 brent: Normative definition of legal types -- Orie, thoughts on what to do here? 22:14:43 Orie_: Multiple subjects conversation, multiple subjects is allowed in JSON-LD and Data Integrity Proofs and VC-JWT, we should close this since VC-JWT has support for it as does Data Integrity. Whether this is a good idea to have multiple subjects is a separate question. 22:14:45 present+ 22:14:51 brent: ok, so closing? Any objections? 22:14:53 None, closing. 22:14:57 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/926 22:15:21 suggest applying post CR label 22:15:23 brent: Definition of evidence as defined by NIST -- do we need to address this before CR? Editorial? Normative changes? 22:15:34 +1 to post Cr 22:15:53 brent: Suggestion to set as post-CR - any objections? 22:16:02 Post CR works form 22:16:06 for me 22:16:09 No objections, marking as post-CR. 22:16:26 q+ 22:16:30 We have no required RDF types for evidence 22:16:33 JoeAndrieu: Do we have implementers that have used evidence, isn't it still at risk? I like it, personally, anyone using it? 22:16:54 best we have are community drafts that are not interoperable, which claim to use evidence. 22:17:02 ack andres 22:17:03 brent: We do need to understand if it's used. 22:17:11 JoeAndrieu: I'm fine w/ moving on. 22:17:31 andres: We are debating using this for identity proofing -- right now, thinking of using it. 22:17:32 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/896 22:17:49 brent: Add DIDAuth as evidence property -- is this pre/post CR? 22:18:10 is there a label for "nobody is doing this" ? 22:18:14 JoeAndrieu: Unfortunately, same concerns, I think it's the right way to do things, but no one is doing it? We should ask if anyone is doing this, and mark it pending close. 22:18:43 brent: ok, done, any opposition to marking as pending close? (with the additional details)? 22:18:49 No objections, marked as pending close. 22:19:04 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/839 22:19:48 brent: presentation schema for VPs, the associated PR is closed because we couldn't come to consensus to merge it. Suggest marking this as pending close in light of that. 22:19:50 +1 22:19:53 +1 22:19:58 manu: +1 22:20:11 brent: ok, not hearing objections, marking pending close and moving on. 22:20:25 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/932 22:20:40 q+ 22:20:47 brent: Representing multi-issuer credentials. Question remains, is this something we want to tackle before CR? 22:20:49 ack Orie_ 22:21:43 Orie_: Similar to multiple subject, all representations and securing mechaisms allow it... I think it can be handled post-CR, if at all. If there aren't strong examples in core spec, by default, not a good thing to be doing, don't think we need to do anything w/ this - close issue, if it remains open, someone should create a good example or issue should be closed. 22:21:52 brent: proposal to mark as pending close, any other comments on issue? 22:22:16 q+ 22:22:32 ack andres 22:22:38 q+ 22:22:58 anything is an object if you are brave enough... especially javascript arrays. 22:23:11 andres: To Orie's point, we do have a lot of examples of real life use cases, but not clear how it works... co-tweets, parents claims about their children, co-signers on loan... what examples do we need for this? 22:23:15 ack dlongley 22:23:25 I meant a single spec example, with multiple issuers 22:23:43 gotcha 22:23:56 the @context allows multiple issuers, and that is what is signed over in both representations. 22:24:00 dlongley: Agree with most of what Brent said, but maybe disagree w/ having multiple IDs... what spec says today doesn't allow multiple issuers. Don't think it's actually supported today, if people want a change, that needs to happen before CR. 22:24:29 brent: does this need to change before CR, any volunteers? 22:24:49 pdl-ASU: Does this involve guardianship, or is that different? 22:25:01 brent: multi-issuer VCs could be one way, but not the only way. 22:25:06 yep, multi issuer and multi subject are both related / required for some scenarios 22:25:17 but afaik, nobody is using them (either). 22:25:21 JoeAndrieu: I'd be hard pressed to understand how that would work. 22:25:23 q+ 22:25:31 scribe+ 22:25:42 ack manu 22:26:04 manu: Just to highlight, I don't think that's an issue, Phil. You can always do multi-issuer by issuing multiple VCs. That may be distasteful in some cases but it works. You can have two VCs claiming a child, and so on. 22:26:23 manu: We're covered as far as use cases are concerned, the question is, is that the most ideal form. To be clear, I don't think we need to deal with this in 2.0. 22:26:30 pdl-ASU: Very good. 22:26:31 scribe- 22:26:39 +1 for future 22:26:42 brent: ok, so suggestion that this is not a VC2.0 thing -- do we mark pending close, or mark future? 22:27:09 JoeAndrieu: Do you want to keep this around, Phil? 22:27:27 pdl-ASU: I just want to make sure we consider this in v3.0... however we keep it around is good. 22:27:34 q+ 22:27:39 scribe+ 22:27:41 ack manu 22:28:17 manu: I guess the only concern I have with keeping it around is that our issuer tracker ends up collecting a lot of cruft over time. Things that are continuously not addressed. If this is an important enough use case it will be raised again saying they want the spec changed. My preference is to close as many issues as possible if they haven't been worked on. 22:28:36 manu: The WG has been operating since 1.0 and 2+ years since then and no one hasn't worked on it. The history will still be there if we close it. 22:28:52 pdl-ASU: I will check with some people I know doing guardianship and see if they are ok with handling it that way. 22:29:02 JoeAndrieu: We would accept use cases in the VC use cases document. 22:29:03 s/that way// 22:29:07 scribe- 22:29:09 pdl-ASU: That's a good suggestion, thanks Joe. 22:29:24 +1 22:29:28 +1 to brent 22:29:30 brent: So, mark this pending close because there is not consensus to do it. Any objections? 22:29:33 manu: +1 22:29:54 brent: ok, marking pending close. 22:30:15 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1015 22:30:29 brent: provide guidance when media type is incorrect. 22:30:34 q+ 22:30:43 ack manu 22:31:10 +1 Manu 22:31:52 manu: We should provide guidance on this. 22:32:08 brent: ok, I'll assign it to manu -- ready for PR. 22:32:18 brent: and before CR. 22:32:29 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1016 22:32:45 brent: Specify allowed verifier interactions w/ verifiable data registries. 22:33:09 brent: Not much discussion... before/after CR, or pending close. 22:33:10 Verifiable Data Registries are blockchains? 22:34:01 TallTed: We should indicate who's issue this is when introduced. 22:34:03 brent: noted. 22:34:16 brent: before/after CR, or pending close. 22:34:29 JoeAndrieu: I'm struggling to make sense of the comment. 22:34:51 brent: pending close unless we get more information? 22:34:57 Seems he is interested in VDRs as trust stores. 22:35:08 JoeAndrieu: VDRs are not a thing in the VC universe? 22:35:18 JoeAndrieu: This is about DIDs... not this spec/work? 22:35:37 brent: so pending close, but for other reasons? 22:35:44 brent: any objections to pending close? 22:35:47 +1 22:35:49 pending closed for 1016 22:35:53 manu: +1 22:35:59 None heard, marking as pending close. 22:36:08 brent: I'll ask David for more information if he wants to keep it open. 22:36:23 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/935 22:36:39 Manu solved this, this can be closed 22:36:49 brent: Add credential boilerplates as examples, ready for PR -- we could add he post-CR label because this has to do with examples, or it could be closed. 22:37:33 Orie: I think it's been addressed by certain PRs, if it's my issue, I'm happy to close it. 22:37:53 brent: Ok, marking pending close and it'll get closed. 22:38:31 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/965 22:39:08 brent: Issued vs. validFrom -- raised by Ivan, two properties have identical descriptions -- is this something that needs to be done. 22:39:10 q+ 22:39:13 scribe+ 22:39:16 ack manu 22:39:37 manu: I don't know. I remember this being tricky. 22:39:41 manu: Looking at it. 22:40:16 manu: We're trying to figure out if we still need `issued`; it's not in the v2 context, since the vocab is not normative right now. If it becomes normative, we will have to do it before CR. 22:40:21 q+ 22:40:36 manu: I'd say it's safe to close this and I don't think it will blow up on us, hopefully. 22:40:56 manu: Everyone needs to remember that if we make the vocabulary normative, it may create issues for us if the definitions in there are not perfectly aligned. 22:40:58 ack Orie_ 22:41:01 manu: Mark pending close is my suggestion. 22:41:02 scribe- 22:42:03 +1 Orie 22:42:16 Orie_: I think we have a bunch of terms that were previously used in v1.1 that are anchored in the vocabulary -- a bit crazy to me that they're not normative, we need to clean that up -- processing v1.1 or v2.0, and if you click through them, you'll hit term definitions that (if they're not understood), we handle that. We should be cautious about this, this is an example of one of those terms. You're expecting the term to have a definition and 22:42:16 you'll either see valid information or not. 22:42:25 q+ to say we still have conflation about what is the valid thing. we need better guidence. 22:42:28 Orie_: If we are living in a world w/ v1 and v2 credentials, we have to clean this up. 22:42:30 ack JoeAndrieu 22:42:30 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say we still have conflation about what is the valid thing. we need better guidence. 22:43:07 JoeAndrieu: I'm ok w/ any of the proposals, but wanted to note that we're still bumping in to this confusion about "the thing we're talking about"... validFrom/validUntil will be used by the credential, but not the VC itself. 22:43:35 JoeAndrieu: I have a DL and it's valid for 3 years vs. the digital signature... there is confusion about what these properties refer to that are not the VC but are being represented by the VC. 22:44:18 brent: I've heard a number of folks saying pending close, if vocab is made normative and we have to clean it up, this being closed wouldn't stop us from cleaning that up. 22:44:32 Q+ 22:44:32 brent: Is there text that should go into the data model to fix this and if so, is the text going to be normative. 22:44:43 ack pdl-ASU 22:44:58 q+ to say it *might* be normative if we talk about the meaning of those properties 22:45:20 pdl-ASU: Is this something that would be better as a non-normative thing in an implementation guide? So there is a place where distinctions that Joe was making are clearly expressed? We keep running into it because two versions, need to address it, can we raise it in a non-normative way to help? 22:45:22 ack JoeAndrieu 22:45:22 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say it *might* be normative if we talk about the meaning of those properties 22:45:22 if there is confusion at this layer, we have failed to write the core spec properly. 22:45:55 http-range-14 strikes again 22:45:59 JoeAndrieu: I do like the idea that we could have some of this stuff in implementation guide -- might it have an effect on normative text, might change meaning of validFrom -- VC vs. credential represented by the VC -- if we learned how to talk about it, might change definitions of properties. 22:46:18 brent: This tells me that we might need to talk about this, mark as before CR and move on. any opposition? 22:46:22 None heard. 22:46:34 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/965 22:46:39 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/887 22:47:02 brent: This was created and assigned to Manu. 22:47:03 iirc, its "creating / issuing". 22:47:17 brent: I don't think this is potentially normative, could be post-CR> 22:47:35 "issuing" seems only relevant when the presentation is signed... which is not always the care 22:47:38 q+ 22:47:42 case* 22:47:43 poll results were: composing and then presenting 22:47:44 ack manu 22:47:48 scribe+ 22:48:00 manu: I think we ran a giant poll in the CCG and we got an answer through ranked choice voting, IIRC. 22:48:38 manu: We have a clear indication on top four choices that we could discuss in the group. 22:48:44 manu: "compose, create, generate, and produce" 22:48:52 manu: "compose" eeked out over create, etc. 22:48:54 those all seem great, as long as you don't actually sign the presentation. 22:48:55 +1 to picking one and going to PR 22:49:10 manu: We could rerun it with a smaller set, the group could debate / bikeshed those 4 things, or we can raise a PR. 22:49:19 manu: Maybe someone could raise a PR and we could discuss there. 22:49:26 in general, presentations need a lot of help. 22:49:28 scribe- 22:49:40 =1 22:49:50 brent: ok labeled ready for pr and post cr 22:49:58 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1052 22:50:51 close it! 22:51:00 brent: This looks like it has been addressed, pending close? 22:51:03 No objections 22:51:17 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1061 22:52:01 brent: Don't know if this is pre/post CR -- depends on making vocab and/or base context normative. 22:52:16 brent: Going to mark this before CR, unless there are objections? 22:52:19 No objections. 22:52:38 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1027 22:53:03 brent: Adding guidance on ignoring optional fields -- pre/post CR? 22:53:08 q+ 22:53:17 ack manu 22:53:25 scribe+ 22:53:36 manu: I think we could end up with normative guidance, there's always a risk of that, so a pre-CR thing problaby. 22:53:41 s/problaby/probably/ 22:53:45 scribe- 22:53:48 brent: Any opposition for before CR? 22:53:51 +1 to fixing this before CR 22:54:07 q+ 22:54:24 JoeAndrieu: I have a question -- optional fields are issuer things, not that they can be ignored by a Verifier -- it's about whether or not the issuer needs to put it in. 22:54:24 ack Orie_ 22:54:59 Orie_: In general, a Verifier can ignore 100% of what an issuer has put in there. In terms of requirement, there are required fields, optional fields that are supposed to be understood -- part of why our vocab should be normative if fields are going to be present. 22:55:21 brent: Thanks for everyone coming today -- this was fantastic and satisfying, let's do this again tomorrow. 22:55:25 "The magnificent 10" 22:55:42 brent: We'll try to figure out the call details. 22:55:49 brent: pleasure to work with you all, bye 22:55:54 rrsagent, draft minutes 22:55:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/06-vcwg-special-minutes.html manu 22:56:02 zakim, who is here? 22:56:02 Present: manu, shigeya, brent, dlongley, andres, JoeAndrieu, Orie_, dlehn, TallTed 22:56:02 On IRC I see Orie_, Zakim, RRSAgent, andres, pdl-ASU, JoeAndrieu, brent, shigeya, TallTed, manu, dlongley, dlehn, stenr, csarven 22:56:16 zakim, end the meeting 22:56:16 As of this point the attendees have been manu, shigeya, brent, dlongley, andres, JoeAndrieu, Orie_, dlehn, TallTed 22:56:19 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 22:56:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/06-vcwg-special-minutes.html Zakim 22:56:27 I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 22:56:27 Zakim has left #vcwg-special 22:56:28 rrsagent, bye 22:56:28 I see no action items