19:02:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
19:02:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/07/19-vcwg-irc
19:03:03 <GregB> GregB has joined #vcwg
19:03:23 <GregB> present +
19:03:32 <seabass> present+
19:03:38 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: VCWG Meeting 2023-07-19: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/36ecd2da-2ec3-4012-b74a-72546ab352f4/20230719T150000/
19:03:46 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
19:03:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:03:48 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
19:03:57 <brent> meeting: VCWG Teleconference
19:04:03 <brent> chair: Brent Zundel
19:04:35 <seabass> scribe+
19:05:03 <brent> zakim, who is here?
19:05:03 <Zakim> Present: seabass
19:05:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see GregB, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, Pierre-Antoine, pchampin, seabass, seabass1, TallTed, dlehn, bigbluehat, Dongwoo, hadleybeeman, gkellogg, bumblefudge1, MojGraph,
19:05:05 <Zakim> ... csarven, stonematt, shigeya, stenr, manu, cel, dlongley, w3c_modbot, Github, npd, cel[m], cel[h], saysaywhat, ounfacdo, bumblefudge, rhiaro
19:05:21 <manu> seabass: Hello, I'm Sebastian Crane, I've participated in RDF Canonicalization and Hashing WG, Manu introduced me to this group, uses many of same concepts, looking forward to contributing as an Editor on the two new cryptosuites, in particular.
19:05:22 <brent> present+ GregB
19:05:26 <manu> present+
19:05:58 <manu> q+ to provide status update (on stuck issues, only)
19:06:21 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
19:06:31 <GregB> present+
19:06:39 <dlongley> present+
19:06:39 <seabass> brent: Looking for implementations of verifiable credentials. Let me know if you would like to demonstrate one at TPAC.
19:06:41 <kgriffin> kgriffin has joined #vcwg
19:06:42 <brent> Topic: Work Item status updates/PRs
19:06:45 <brent> ack manu
19:06:45 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to provide status update (on stuck issues, only)
19:07:01 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1149
19:07:11 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
19:07:16 <seabass> manu: I'll only cover PRs that I think we might be able to cover on this call. 1149 is waiting on TallTed to provide a review.
19:07:23 <dmitriz> present+
19:07:56 <seabass> manu: The PR maps certain terms to a registry.
19:08:15 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
19:08:21 <DavidC> present+
19:08:25 <dlehn> present+
19:08:26 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1186
19:08:35 <kgriffin> present+
19:08:58 <seabass> manu: 1186 is about 'Holder Asserted Claims'. Brent has been processing feedback about it; JoeAndrieu, TallTed are you OK with this PR?
19:09:42 <brent> q+ to respond
19:10:08 <dwaite> dwaite has joined #vcwg
19:10:25 <brent> ack brent
19:10:25 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to respond
19:10:33 <seabass> JoeAndrieu: The language doesn't address what I was referring to. I have some language which would fit, but the PR is rather tangential now.
19:11:17 <seabass> brent: I think I addressed it in a part of the PR you were not tagged for.
19:12:34 <TallTed> I'll re-review 1186 and 1149 (and any others currently awaiting my input, if I can have a list of them) after this call.
19:13:03 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1199
19:13:08 <seabass> manu: We'll wait for re-reviews but there doesn't appear to be any objection.
19:13:23 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
19:13:24 <Orie> present+
19:13:26 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1203
19:14:02 <seabass> manu: The last one on vc-data-model is 1203 (we talked about it yesterday). I got feedback from Orie and others and have implemented changes.
19:14:05 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #vcwg
19:14:26 <cabernet> cabernet has joined #vcwg
19:14:29 <cabernet> present+
19:14:53 <JoeAndrieu> q+
19:14:56 <brent> zakim, who is here?
19:14:56 <Zakim> Present: seabass, GregB, manu, dlongley, dmitriz, DavidC, dlehn, kgriffin, Orie, cabernet
19:14:59 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
19:14:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see cabernet, tzviya, Orie, dwaite, DavidC, dmitriz, kgriffin, JoeAndrieu, GregB, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, Pierre-Antoine, pchampin, seabass, seabass1, TallTed, dlehn,
19:14:59 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat, Dongwoo, hadleybeeman, gkellogg, bumblefudge1, MojGraph, csarven, stonematt, shigeya, stenr, manu, cel, dlongley, w3c_modbot, Github, npd, cel[m], cel[h],
19:14:59 <Zakim> ... saysaywhat, ounfacdo, bumblefudge, rhiaro
19:15:04 <brent> present+
19:15:06 <TallTed> present+
19:15:44 <brent> present+ selfissued
19:16:03 <brent> present+ JoeAndrieu
19:16:08 <Orie> IMO the MUST regarding proof is making Manu's job, near impossible.
19:16:45 <manu> I'll try to tackle that in another PR, Orie, have some ideas on how to thread that needle.
19:16:46 <brent> present+ dwaite
19:17:12 <seabass> JoeAndrieu: I would support the method of securing VCs if it originated in our WG. To the extent that others call things VC, I am concerned that they may not have the level of quality that what we define has.
19:17:19 <brent> present+ identitywoman
19:18:06 <Orie> vc-jose-cose is in process of being renamed, and PRs are on hold until that is complete.
19:18:34 <brent> Topic: Issue Discussion
19:18:45 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Abefore-CR+-label%3A%22pending+close%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc
19:19:15 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Abefore-CR+-label%3A%22pending+close%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3Apost-CR
19:19:44 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1169
19:19:47 <manu> q+
19:20:39 <brent> ack manu
19:20:56 <seabass> brent: 1169 - since the Use Cases say what we want to say, I suggest removing the Use Case summary from the data model
19:21:13 <seabass> manu: I fully support removing it as long as we make sure we have accounted for everything.
19:21:42 <seabass> manu: The list is important as we spent a lot of time making sure that it was complete.
19:22:13 <manu> +1 this is post CR
19:22:17 <manu> q+
19:22:17 <seabass> brent: This is purely editorial, so I will label it post-CR.
19:22:23 <JoeAndrieu> q+
19:22:26 <brent> ack manu
19:23:05 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
19:23:05 <Orie> I will need a fully qualified URL to understand github labels
19:23:56 <seabass> JoeAndrieu: if someone wants the granulatity expressed in the list, they can go to the separate document. However, a few concrete use-case examples would be beneficial.
19:24:15 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1176
19:24:59 <seabass> brent: 1176 - 'define what a credential validity means'. I believe that this issue is just a question. I think we should put a 'discuss' label on it
19:25:22 <JoeAndrieu> q+
19:25:35 <manu> q+
19:25:40 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
19:26:04 <manu> q-
19:26:37 <seabass> JoeAndrieu: I think the original question is about the validity period. The issue went into what is *validity* in general, which I think is a separate concern.
19:26:49 <dlongley> q+
19:26:59 <brent> ack dlongley
19:27:13 <manu> q+
19:27:18 <JoeAndrieu> q+
19:27:37 <seabass> dlongley: I think the data model is clear, but maybe we need better prose to explian it.
19:27:38 <brent> that matches my understanding
19:27:38 <Orie> validity period applies to the `id` in the credential... credential does not require an `id`.
19:27:41 <brent> ack manu
19:27:46 <seabass> q+ to ask about CR timeline
19:28:04 <dlongley> Orie: disagree, it applies to the object in which it appears -- and that object may or may not have a globally unambiguous ID
19:28:09 <seabass> manu: One question is whether we want validFrom and validUntil to apply to presentations as well.
19:28:15 <dlongley> Orie: so those are two separate things.
19:28:35 <seabass> manu: I think it's fine to apply to either presentations or credentials.
19:28:36 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
19:28:44 <DavidC> +1 to applying to VPs as well
19:28:47 <seabass> JoeAndrieu: +1 to validity on presentations as well.
19:28:50 <Orie> Once it becomes rdf, there will be an `id`... it just won't be unique.. we are saying the same thing.
19:28:53 <manu> scribe+
19:29:37 <dlongley> +1 those are different things -- put `validFrom` / `validUntil` on that other thing if you want to use it there
19:29:43 <brent> agree that it is VC
19:29:44 <dlongley> q?
19:29:47 <brent> q+ DavidC
19:29:51 <brent> ack seabass
19:29:51 <Zakim> seabass, you wanted to ask about CR timeline
19:30:16 <manu> seabass: My question is about entering CR, how long do we have in terms of doing what we want to do until it moves onto next stage. We have a number of post CR issues.
19:31:17 <dlongley> q+ to say that like any other property in our data model, the property applies to the object in which it appears -- so when `validFrom` / `validUntil` appear on the object representing a VC, it applies to a VC, if someone happens to use it on some other object it applies to that other object (such as a VP or maybe a modeled driver's or other license somewhere under `credentialSubject`)
19:32:09 <brent> ack DavidC
19:32:14 <seabass> scribe+
19:32:37 <seabass> DavidC: Because the validity period applies to the VC, it should be path of the proof property and not part of the data model.
19:32:38 <manu> brent: We don't have to wait to enter CR before working on issues... we have budgeted at least 2 60 day CR periods.
19:32:56 <manu> brent: We have other options as well, if we need more time.
19:33:06 <dmitriz> -1 to moving validFrom etc to 'proof'
19:33:11 <brent> ack dlongley
19:33:11 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say that like any other property in our data model, the property applies to the object in which it appears -- so when `validFrom` / `validUntil` appear on
19:33:14 <Zakim> ... the object representing a VC, it applies to a VC, if someone happens to use it on some other object it applies to that other object (such as a VP or maybe a modeled driver's or
19:33:14 <Zakim> ... other license somewhere under `credentialSubject`)
19:33:31 <brent> also -1 to moving them to proof
19:33:55 <Orie> +1 dlongley, the data model is RDF, the properties go on the RDF graph node, or an RDF blank node, if not `id` exists.
19:33:56 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to applying valid* to the object of which it is a property
19:34:20 <seabass> without general context of this issue, +1 dlongley
19:34:20 <brent> +1 dlongley
19:35:18 <manu> q+
19:35:50 <manu> q-
19:35:54 <dmitriz> q+
19:36:04 <brent> ack dmitriz
19:36:08 <DavidC> @seabass "path of the proof property" -> "pat of the proof property
19:36:10 <Orie> I tell the bar tender how long they can use my drivers license all the time.
19:36:20 <DavidC> part of the proof property
19:36:25 <seabass> dmitriz: What is the semantic meaning of a validity period on a presentation?
19:36:41 <seabass> manu: It's about the length of time the presentation itself should be considered valid
19:36:47 <TallTed> it's an unenforceable, voluntary limitation
19:37:02 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say its a challenge string alternative
19:37:06 <Orie> He means this predicate: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/main/contexts/credentials/v2#L84
19:37:08 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
19:37:08 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say its a challenge string alternative
19:37:36 <seabass> It's not just whether the semantics *can* be defined, but also whether there is a use case for this
19:37:54 <seabass> JoeAndrieu: I think this introduces additional potential for confusion.
19:38:11 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1173
19:38:44 <manu> post-CR
19:39:07 <seabass> brent: 1173 - I'll label it as post-CR if there aren't any objections.
19:39:17 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to maybe object to post-CR
19:40:08 <Orie> https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/
19:40:19 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
19:40:19 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to maybe object to post-CR
19:41:04 <seabass> seabass: I have been in extensive discussions in another WG about this, and my opinion is that PROV-O provides the clearest representation of this
19:41:18 <seabass> JoeAndrieu: I think this may require normative changes, and so should not be labelled as post-CR.
19:41:31 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1188
19:41:36 <manu> q+
19:41:52 <brent> ack manu
19:42:37 <seabass> manu: I think we need to make other PR and issues for other informative sections for removal.
19:42:37 <Orie> q+
19:42:55 <brent> ack Orie
19:42:55 <seabass> manu: For this *specific* issue, I would suggest closing it as it is not actionable itself.
19:43:05 <DavidC> +1 manu
19:43:24 <seabass> Orie: I agree with Manu. However, I find that it is difficult to deal with others not taking interest in informative statements.
19:43:49 <manu> +1 to use less words to communicate the same concepts.
19:43:53 <seabass> Orie: Therefore, I would suggest reducing the word-count to make the important parts count more.
19:43:59 <manu> +1 to improving current text.
19:44:17 <dlongley> +1 to make things easier to understand in fewer words as possible
19:44:25 <manu> +1 to close, but raise issues/PRs on specific sections to rework/remove.
19:44:35 <TallTed> comment already added.
19:44:59 <manu> seabass: Opinion not exactly contrary to Orie, before we remove, we might want to have things in less formal but easily accessible place.
19:45:02 <Orie> +1, we have use cases, imp guid as notes...
19:45:18 <manu> brent: so move to use cases, or implementation guide?
19:45:37 <manu> seabass: Yes, exactly. You can have a pithy definition, but can only understand it after having engaged in years of discussion.
19:45:44 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1191
19:45:47 <Orie> I prefer references to informative stuff, not inlining large amounts of informative text.
19:46:11 <Orie> q+
19:46:12 <seabass> I don't even think referencing it within the spec is necessary, just making it accessible on a website
19:46:18 <brent> ack Orie
19:46:30 <seabass> Orie: I think we talked about the subject of #1191 at the last TPAC.
19:46:38 <manu> q+
19:46:52 <seabass> Orie: I thought we had concluded that the JSON-LD @language feature had some issue with it and so wasn't recommended?
19:47:01 <brent> ack manu
19:47:32 <seabass> manu: The issue is that people aren't using the feature.
19:49:20 <Orie> its the JSON syntax for RDF lang tags
19:49:27 <seabass> seabass: Is this related to the RDF language tags?
19:49:35 <seabass> manu: Yes, this is just an additional example of that.
19:50:10 <manu> seabass: I can try to handle this issue.
19:50:28 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1192
19:50:59 <seabass> manu: I'll address 1192.
19:51:30 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1185
19:51:47 <Orie> q+
19:51:53 <brent> ack Orie
19:52:12 <kgriffin> kgriffin has joined #vcwg
19:53:09 <seabass> Orie: It is unclear to me whether implementors are ever required to process the context document directly.
19:53:40 <dlongley> not sure what Orie wants... but this PR might be related to it or might resolve it?: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1202
19:53:48 <identitywoman_> identitywoman_ has joined #vcwg
19:53:49 <identitywoman_> present+
19:54:01 <seabass> Orie: It would be good to have an explanation of what implementors can rely on now that the context document is required.
19:54:13 <manu> q+ to note 1202 is an attempt to address this.
19:54:53 <brent> ack manu
19:54:53 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note 1202 is an attempt to address this.
19:55:19 <seabass> manu: 1202 was an attempt to explain non-RDF processing.
19:55:33 <Orie> exactly.
19:55:51 <JoeAndrieu> q+
19:56:31 <Orie> yes! talk about expansion and framing! show the value of JSON-LD... we all the see value of JSON I think.
19:56:42 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
19:57:04 <seabass> JoeAndrieu: +1 to explaining the value of JSON-LD.
19:57:22 <Orie> +1 need to clarify if the verifier needs to understand normative context.
19:57:46 <brent> +1 Joe
19:57:47 <manu> +1 to JoeAndrieu, agree.
19:57:52 <Orie> I think we are on our way to saying that directly... in https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1202
19:58:01 <seabass> JoeAndrieu: I think that if a party receives a VC, they can assume that their interpretation of the local names is the same.
19:59:31 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
19:59:31 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been seabass, GregB, manu, dlongley, dmitriz, DavidC, dlehn, kgriffin, Orie, cabernet, brent, TallTed, selfissued, JoeAndrieu, dwaite,
19:59:34 <Zakim> ... identitywoman, identitywoman_
19:59:34 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:59:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/19-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
19:59:42 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
19:59:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
19:59:51 <brent> rrsagent, bye
19:59:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items