18:59:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
18:59:54 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/07/05-vcwg-irc
18:59:55 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
18:59:55 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
18:59:57 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
19:00:16 <brent> meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Weekly Teleconference
19:00:22 <brent> chair: Kristina Yasuda
19:00:40 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
19:00:51 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
19:01:07 <kristina> present+
19:01:11 <cabernet> cabernet has joined #vcwg
19:01:20 <shigeya> present+
19:01:22 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-07-05: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/36ecd2da-2ec3-4012-b74a-72546ab352f4/20230705T150000/
19:01:22 <kristina> kristina has changed the topic to: VCWG Agenda 2023-07-05
19:01:29 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-07-05: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/36ecd2da-2ec3-4012-b74a-72546ab352f4/20230705T150000/
19:01:34 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
19:01:37 <selfissued> present+
19:01:43 <manu> present+
19:01:59 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
19:02:09 <kristina> zakim, start meeting
19:02:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:02:40 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), kristina
19:02:40 <kristina> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
19:02:40 <decentralgabe> present+
19:02:40 <GregB> GregB has joined #vcwg
19:02:40 <GregB> present+
19:02:42 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
19:02:50 <pl_asu> pl_asu has joined #vcwg
19:02:51 <kgriffin> kgriffin has joined #vcwg
19:03:05 <selfissued> scribe+
19:03:05 <pl_asu> present+
19:03:11 <cabernet> present+
19:03:14 <kgriffin> present+
19:03:15 <DavidC> present+
19:03:43 <manu> q+ work item updates
19:03:48 <manu> q+
19:03:48 <selfissued> kristina: Agenda: work item updates and PRs
19:03:53 <kristina> ack manu
19:04:01 <selfissued> ... Call out items that need attention
19:04:02 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
19:04:16 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
19:04:18 <selfissued> manu: There are a lot of new VCDM pull requests
19:04:33 <selfissued> ... We're getting good review from people that normally review PRs
19:04:46 <selfissued> ... Some WG members may not be aware of them
19:04:53 <selfissued> ... Some are blocked
19:04:58 <Will> Will has joined #vcwg
19:05:03 <Will> present+
19:05:06 <selfissued> ... We need to figure out what we're going to do with #1100 and #1101
19:05:18 <selfissued> ... Confidence is blocked in the CCG
19:05:37 <selfissued> ... The bottom 6 or 7 are currently blocked
19:05:41 <mprorock> q+ to ask re cnf
19:06:06 <selfissued> ... For Data Integrity, we've been marking issues
19:06:13 <selfissued> ... and PRs
19:06:36 <selfissued> ... Definitely keep an eye on the issues and PRs there
19:06:40 <kristina> ack mprorock
19:06:40 <Zakim> mprorock, you wanted to ask re cnf
19:07:06 <TallTed> present+
19:07:21 <manu> I'd be a +1 to close the PR, but we should link to specs that exist.
19:07:39 <selfissued> mprorock: If no one is stepping up to do #1142 maybe we can close it and pick it up later if need be
19:07:43 <manu> agree that we shouldn't close w/o Oliver being here
19:07:55 <selfissued> kristina: Oliver's not on the call so we can't close now
19:08:01 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1142
19:08:18 <selfissued> mprorock: I didn't mean close right now.  I just don't want it to hang out indefinitately.
19:08:23 <kristina> q?
19:08:59 <dwaite> dwaite has joined #vcwg
19:09:02 <kristina> topic: issue discussion
19:09:02 <kristina> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Abefore-CR+-label%3A%22pending+close%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc
19:09:16 <dwaite> present+
19:09:25 <brent> present+
19:10:25 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1152
19:10:29 <manu> q+
19:10:42 <kristina> ack manu
19:11:03 <selfissued> manu: This is definitely pre-candidate rec.
19:11:24 <selfissued> mprorock: I'm fine raising the PR.  I may be delayed two weeks due to travel.
19:11:36 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1153
19:12:00 <manu> q+
19:12:04 <kristina> ack manu
19:12:19 <selfissued> manu: This is definitely pre-CR
19:12:30 <selfissued> ... It's about knowing how the group will test the feature
19:12:46 <selfissued> ... We need thoughts from Mike P. on how to test the feature. Then we can close the issue.
19:12:49 <mprorock> +1 manu
19:12:58 <selfissued> ... It need to be there until there's an agreed upon plan.
19:13:14 <selfissued> mprorock: Assign me the issue
19:13:18 <manu> q+
19:13:24 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1154
19:13:38 <kristina> ack manu
19:13:51 <selfissued> manu: This is a post-CR thing
19:14:43 <selfissued> kristina: Why didn't this already happen?  What's the IPR status?
19:15:00 <selfissued> manu: This just didn't happen.  I believe it's Open Source.
19:15:38 <pl_asu> +1 to transferring - BSD is good!
19:15:41 <selfissued> kristina: It's currently a BSD 3 clause license
19:15:58 <selfissued> kristina: The licensing needs to be addressed.
19:16:47 <selfissued> kristina: The next three are horizontal review.  I'll skip them.  We don't have horizontal review responses yet.
19:17:07 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1047
19:17:15 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
19:17:18 <Orie> present+
19:17:41 <Orie> all the terms needs better grounding
19:17:56 <selfissued> kristina: I think it's ready for PR
19:17:57 <Orie> possible that the normative "vocab" can help with this
19:18:12 <brent> regardless, this is post-cr, yes?
19:18:45 <selfissued> ... Last time Charless agreed to be assigned - three months ago
19:18:58 <Orie> vocab is normative now though right?
19:19:07 <selfissued> manu: It depends upon what the PR does.  I could be pre or post CR.
19:19:24 <selfissued> manu: Vocab is now normative, Orie
19:19:25 <Orie> if vocab is normative, and terms are not consistent with vocab, its pre CR
19:19:52 <kristina> q?
19:19:53 <manu> q+
19:19:57 <manu> q-
19:20:00 <selfissued> kristina: It may be that we will align the definition with NIST.
19:20:08 <selfissued> ... What do you want to happen here, Orie?
19:20:10 <Orie> I would like to see a PR that updates the related terms
19:20:21 <manu> In what way?
19:20:28 <Orie> and leverages our ability to provide citations and remove confusion
19:20:44 <selfissued> brent: The most conservative thing to do is to mark it pre-CR
19:21:02 <selfissued> kristina: I'll mark it before CR
19:21:08 <kristina> subtype: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1118
19:21:15 <manu> q+
19:21:32 <kristina> ack manu
19:21:46 <selfissued> manu: I think we have clear media types in the spec now
19:21:54 <selfissued> ... That's what this issue was attempting to resolve
19:22:00 <selfissued> ... We could mark it pending close
19:22:10 <selfissued> ... I'd be interested to hear from Orie
19:22:29 <selfissued> Orie: This issue is specific to HTTP
19:22:49 <selfissued> ... At least some basic guidance on where you expect them to show up is needed to close this issue
19:23:24 <selfissued> ... We need a sentence about registering types with IANA
19:23:33 <manu> q+
19:23:44 <selfissued> ... It could show up in the content type or accept header
19:23:47 <selfissued> q+
19:23:57 <kristina> ack manu
19:24:23 <Orie> +1 manu
19:24:28 <selfissued> manu: What Orie is asking for is to say somewhere that it is expected that HTTP endpoints use accept headers, etc.
19:24:35 <Orie> explain how to use the requested registrations
19:24:40 <selfissued> ... This wouldn't go in the IANA Considerations
19:24:45 <selfissued> ... This is ready for PR
19:24:55 <manu> scribe+
19:25:01 <kristina> ack selfissued
19:25:11 <Orie> +1 selfissued and manu
19:25:16 <mprorock> +1
19:25:29 <manu> selfissued: No, it doesn't go in the IANA registration, it goes in text in the body of the specification describing how we expect to use the media types. I've registered a lot of media types, none of them say what you use them for in the registration.
19:25:44 <selfissued> kristina: I'm assigning Orie
19:26:00 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/860
19:26:18 <Orie> q+
19:26:18 <selfissued> kristina: This is about self-signed VCs, right?
19:26:26 <kristina> ack Orie
19:26:41 <selfissued> Orie: Brent has a raised a PR that addresses a lot of this issue
19:26:45 <selfissued> ... Pull 1181
19:27:12 <selfissued> ... PR 1181 doesn't currently reflect what you can do with a VP
19:27:34 <selfissued> ... Brent, can you please revise per the comments
19:27:43 <Orie> Thank you for the PR: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1181
19:27:52 <Orie> it could address that issue.
19:27:59 <selfissued> brent: I don't remember if I tried to address the comments or not yet, but I definitely can
19:28:10 <manu> q+
19:28:13 <selfissued> kristina: I've assigned this to you, Brent
19:28:21 <JoeAndrieu> present?
19:28:35 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/928
19:28:38 <JoeAndrieu> present+
19:29:01 <Orie> I suggest closing, we have addressed this in the reserved terms table
19:29:12 <manu> q+
19:29:32 <manu> +1 to close, agree w/ Orie, we're done here
19:29:44 <kristina> ack manu
19:29:45 <selfissued> kristina: I don't understand why this is dependent on a PR 1142
19:29:48 <Orie> I will drop the confidenceMethod part of https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1142 if CCG does not adopt the proposal
19:30:03 <Orie> +1 manu, it adds links
19:30:06 <selfissued> brent: The PR does both confidence method and render method
19:30:32 <selfissued> manu: This issue is about adding render method to VCDM
19:30:37 <selfissued> ... I think we can close this issue
19:30:56 <selfissued> kristina: Render method is already in as a reserved property
19:30:58 <selfissued> ... Closing it
19:31:21 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1108
19:31:21 <kgriffin> q+
19:31:34 <manu> That's the PR we added renderMethod reservation in ^
19:31:58 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1105
19:31:58 <kristina> ack kgriffin
19:32:02 <selfissued> kgriffin: The queue is for issue #1105
19:32:55 <selfissued> ... I think the language that was merged in PR #1086 is fine. I agree with Brent.
19:32:59 <manu> +1 to what brent said, no further action needed, close it.
19:33:18 <Orie> -1
19:33:20 <selfissued> kristina: You're agreeing with Brent's comment to close with no action, right?
19:33:21 <Orie> to closing
19:33:25 <selfissued> ... Manu agrees
19:33:25 <Orie> q+
19:33:29 <selfissued> ... I'm closing it
19:33:31 <kristina> ack Orie
19:33:33 <kristina> q?
19:33:58 <selfissued> Orie: Brent mentions that proof can be used for things that are not Data Integrity
19:34:13 <selfissued> ... We will still have to describe proof and what to do when you get a different kind of proof
19:34:34 <manu> q+
19:34:36 <selfissued> ... We are not citing any securing spec for non Data Integrity uses
19:34:42 <selfissued> ... I'd like that to be made more explicit
19:34:43 <kristina> ack manu
19:34:50 <selfissued> manu: It would be good to highlight that
19:34:59 <selfissued> ... proof is not just for Data Integrity
19:35:10 <Orie> The vocab defines proof as being specific to JSON-LD... but afaik, its not required to be of type "DataIntegrityProof"
19:35:10 <selfissued> ... The object that's pointed to needs to have a type
19:35:24 <Orie> implementers might need to understand that
19:35:25 <Orie> q+
19:35:26 <brent> q+
19:35:29 <selfissued> kristina: We want Brent's PR to address this
19:35:31 <kristina> ack Orie
19:35:37 <selfissued> Orie: I don't think Brent's PR can address this
19:35:57 <selfissued> ... We need a standalone PR enumerating the two securing specifications
19:36:13 <selfissued> ... We need to say how to use it with the Vocabulary we have
19:36:24 <selfissued> ... Proof is arbitrary JSON-LD
19:36:33 <selfissued> ... You'd better know what you're doing
19:36:34 <manu> q+
19:36:40 <selfissued> ... As a security person, this scares me
19:36:43 <pl_asu> q+ An example of using a proof for something other than data integrity?
19:36:49 <kristina> ack brent
19:37:06 <selfissued> ... We need to address the challenges of conflating the securing methods with the VCDM
19:37:12 <kristina> ack manu
19:37:14 <selfissued> brent: We need a different PR
19:37:20 <selfissued> manu: I can take a shot at this
19:37:23 <Orie> thank you manu!
19:37:28 <pl_asu> q- I'll wait until  Manu takes a shot at it
19:37:58 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1132
19:38:03 <Orie> Lets add an example that has a matrix in it :)
19:38:39 <selfissued> kristina: We can't find text in @context that defines how to do that
19:38:54 <Orie> I object,
19:38:56 <selfissued> kristina: Arrays of arrays are not valid JSON-LD
19:39:01 <Orie> it needs to be explained in the spec
19:39:07 <selfissued> ... I'm going to put pending close unless there are objections
19:39:07 <Orie> q+
19:39:10 <kristina> ack Orie
19:39:41 <mprorock> +1 orie
19:39:47 <selfissued> Orie: Having answered this question many times, if our Core DM is JSON-LD, we're obliged to describe this detail
19:40:02 <selfissued> ... If people try to do what works in JSON they will be really unhappy
19:40:15 <selfissued> ... We should describe @list and @type and ordering
19:40:23 <selfissued> ... That kind of guidance needs to be in our spec
19:40:38 <kristina> q?
19:40:44 <manu> q+
19:40:48 <kristina> ack manu
19:40:53 <Orie> We could recommend `@type`, `@json`, `@list`
19:40:53 <selfissued> kristina: Could you take a stab at this, Orie?
19:40:55 <Orie> etc...
19:41:09 <selfissued> Orie: I think it would be better for someone more experienced in JSON-LD to do that
19:41:22 <selfissued> manu: You can do arrays of arrays and arrays of lists
19:41:30 <Orie> +1 Manu, it would be good to comment on "how" to do the things... and how to use `@context` to do them.
19:41:31 <selfissued> ... We need a concrete use cases
19:41:42 <selfissued> ... I'm fine to keep it open
19:42:10 <selfissued> ... If someone wants to expose an array of ordered arrays that can do it one way and if they want RDF semantics they can do it another way
19:42:17 <mprorock> q+
19:42:19 <selfissued> ... I'm not volunteering to do it
19:42:30 <selfissued> ... We need someone who knows what we're trying to accomplish
19:43:01 <Orie> +1 to providing guidance on how to model things in JSON-LD
19:43:06 <selfissued> ... There's lots of other things we can do that we're not providing guidance for in the spec
19:43:19 <kristina> ack mprorock
19:43:21 <Orie> especially the comment about how to model arrays or arrays, and maps of maps.
19:43:24 <selfissued> ... If you want JSON semantics, use @json
19:43:35 <manu> q+
19:43:42 <kristina> ack manu
19:44:04 <selfissued> mprorock: A common example is arrays of arrays of (longitude, latitude) or (longitude, latitude, altitude)
19:44:10 <Orie> +1 to pointing to geojsonld when providing guidance on locations in JSON-LD
19:44:18 <mprorock> https://geojson.org/geojson-ld/
19:44:20 <Orie> https://geojson.org/geojson-ld/
19:44:23 <selfissued> manu: There's a Geo JSON-LD spec
19:44:48 <selfissued> mprorock: This would be a very helpful example
19:45:25 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1090
19:45:44 <manu> q+
19:45:58 <kristina> ack manu
19:46:14 <Orie> q+
19:46:25 <Orie> saddly not enough
19:46:28 <kristina> ack Orie
19:46:29 <selfissued> manu: Brent said this should be addressed if PR 1158 is merged.  Orie agreed.
19:46:58 <selfissued> Orie: It answers the question about the literal @context value being normative.  It doesn't say what to do with the value.
19:47:06 <selfissued> ... We could close this issue
19:47:19 <selfissued> ... But we need to explain why we made @context normative
19:47:38 <selfissued> ... Documents are compacted by default.  Expanding is something you do with @context.
19:48:01 <selfissued> ... We should be clear on what processors do and what to do if errors occur when processing
19:48:01 <selfissued> q_
19:48:03 <selfissued> q+
19:48:13 <kristina> ack selfissued
19:48:29 <manu> selfissued: Orie and friends, is there an issue to mark that we do need to describe what you do with @context, and if not, can one be filed?
19:48:51 <Orie> I think there is not one that addresses it directly...
19:48:52 <selfissued> kristina: We could leave this open or file a new issue
19:49:20 <selfissued> kristina: What do you want to do, Orie?
19:49:30 <selfissued> Orie: I will file a new issue and mark this one pending close
19:49:53 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/870
19:50:39 <selfissued> kristina: Is this addressed by evidence being in the reserved properties, Orie?
19:50:42 <selfissued> Orie: Sort of
19:51:06 <selfissued> ... It's pretty bad form to reserve something that you can't find any interoperable implementations of
19:51:23 <selfissued> ... If there's a stronger evidence type, that would be better to rever to
19:51:37 <selfissued> kristina: I think that EBSI and Keri are using evidence
19:52:06 <manu> q+
19:52:10 <kristina> s/keri/Kerry in EDU
19:52:11 <Orie> right, but each party using `evidence` is using the `predicate` and AFAIK, the `type` has no interop?
19:52:14 <kristina> ack manu
19:52:19 <selfissued> pl_asu: In the education community, it's often used with assertions of skills and confidences
19:52:37 <GregB> Phil is evidence in the new clr 2 spec?
19:52:39 <selfissued> manu: I see that Gabe is saying that TBD will be using it
19:52:54 <selfissued> ... The OpenID eKYC-IDA spec uses it
19:53:02 <Orie> fwiw, i dont think anyone is using it in any interoperable way... and 2, we have no ability to encourage interop based on what we have been doing.
19:53:09 <selfissued> ... We need to see some level of interop demonstration
19:53:10 <pl_asu> @GregB - lemme look
19:53:24 <DavidC> Q+
19:53:29 <selfissued> ... I believe you need at least 2 interoperable implementations to reserve a term
19:53:42 <kristina> ack DavidC
19:53:43 <selfissued> ... There are a number of people using it in some capacity
19:53:51 <selfissued> ... But interop has yet to be demonstrated
19:54:09 <manu> q+
19:54:10 <selfissued> DavidC: You can test that 2 implementations will work with the evidence property
19:54:22 <selfissued> ... Testing the business logic is another thing altogether
19:54:30 <kristina> ack manu
19:54:39 <selfissued> ... I don't think our spec specifies the business logic
19:54:52 <selfissued> manu: That was the model we were working under in the V1 and V1.1 WGs
19:55:03 <selfissued> ... It seems like the V2 WG is upping the bar
19:55:18 <selfissued> ... It seems to be what people are pushing towards
19:55:39 <Orie> +1 Manu
19:55:39 <selfissued> ... Several accepted PRs have asked for more
19:55:57 <Orie> q+
19:56:01 <selfissued> kristina: What does that mean in terms of the spec text or directory?
19:56:13 <GregB> CLR 2.0 https://www.imsglobal.org/spec/clr/v2p0#evidence
19:56:18 <selfissued> DavidC: I don't see how you can put those conformance tests into the VCDM test suite
19:56:32 <selfissued> ... There are different applications that will have different specifications of evidence
19:56:36 <kristina> ack Orie
19:56:44 <selfissued> ... They will be specific to those groups of users and won't be generic
19:58:05 <selfissued> Orie: If the VCDM defines the evidence property and it's defined in the normative @context then there are positive and negative data model tests than can be applied to it
19:58:07 <pl_asu> @GregB it's used frequently in the CLRv2: see https://www.imsglobal.org/node/205106#evidence, and, https://www.imsglobal.org/node/205106#evidence-0 for examples
19:58:16 <manu> q+
19:58:19 <selfissued> ... even if what the property means is completely untestable
19:58:21 <DavidC> +1 to Orie
19:58:27 <kristina> ack manu
19:58:48 <selfissued> kristina: I'm leaving this open.  The IRC comments will be reflected in the issue.
19:58:56 <Orie> can we cite IMS global normatively?
19:59:00 <pl_asu> @Orie - yes, they have six implementers as I recall
19:59:11 <Orie> maybe good to do that, when keeping the property.
19:59:20 <selfissued> manu: The next step for this issue should be to refer to Phil's citations above
19:59:52 <selfissued> pl_asu: I can be assigned this issue.  I will add citations to the issue.
20:00:08 <selfissued> kristina: Brent will chair next week
20:00:24 <selfissued> ... We will probably cancel in two weeks
20:00:29 <brent> zakim, who is here?
20:00:29 <Zakim> Present: kristina, shigeya, selfissued, manu, decentralgabe, GregB, pl_asu, cabernet, kgriffin, DavidC, Will, TallTed, dwaite, brent, Orie, JoeAndrieu
20:00:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see Orie, TallTed, kgriffin, pl_asu, DavidC, JoeAndrieu, selfissued, cabernet, kristina, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, mprorock, shigeya, manu, tzviya, dlehn, cel[h], MojGraph,
20:00:31 <Zakim> ... w3c_modbot, Github, saysaywhat, cel[m], bumblefudge, bumblefudge1, ounfacdo, npd, dlongley, rhiaro, stonematt, cel, bigbluehat, hadleybeeman, Dongwoo, stenr, csarven
20:00:43 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
20:00:43 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been kristina, shigeya, selfissued, manu, decentralgabe, GregB, pl_asu, cabernet, kgriffin, DavidC, Will, TallTed, dwaite, brent, Orie,
20:00:46 <Zakim> ... JoeAndrieu
20:00:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:00:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/05-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
20:00:55 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:00:55 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
20:00:55 <brent> rrsagent, bye
20:00:55 <RRSAgent> I see no action items