14:46:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:46:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-did-irc
14:46:18 <Wip> Wip has joined #did
14:46:23 <ottomorac> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:46:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-did-minutes.html ottomorac
14:46:31 <ottomorac> rrsagent, make logs public
14:46:39 <ottomorac> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
14:46:52 <ottomorac> Chair: ottomorac
14:47:52 <ottomorac> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Mar/0011.html
14:59:39 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
14:59:52 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/20-did-minutes.html
14:59:52 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/04/03-did-minutes.html
14:59:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:00:45 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:01:27 <ottomorac> present+
15:01:29 <swcurran> swcurran has joined #did
15:01:40 <swcurran> present+
15:02:08 <TallTed> present+
15:02:43 <ivan> present+
15:03:11 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
15:03:17 <KevinDean> present+
15:03:18 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:03:35 <Wip> scribe+
15:03:40 <Wip> present+
15:04:07 <ottomorac> subtopic: Volunteers for Horizontal Review Documents
15:04:23 <Wip> s/subtopic/Topic
15:04:43 <Wip> manu: Every document we publish on standards track requires horizontal review
15:05:14 <Wip> ... This means we talk to W3C groups like technical architecture, internationalization etc to make sure our specs meet their guidlines
15:05:29 <Wip> ... We are also supposed to engage with people in our liason section in our charter
15:05:42 <Wip> ... It is best to start horizontal review as early in our process as possible
15:05:54 <Wip> ... There is a significant amount of work we have to do as part of this process
15:06:04 <Wip> ... Each group has a slightly different way to do this
15:06:21 <Wip> ... e.g. for the technical architecture group we need a one pager. Others require us to perform a self review
15:06:40 <ivan> q+
15:06:42 <Wip> ... What we need from the group are volunteers to help us do these self reviews etc
15:06:55 <Wip> ... For documents we have done in the past we have previous documents we can iterate on
15:07:11 <Wip> ... The DID spec is largely the same just a 1.1. rev
15:07:26 <Wip> ... For DID resolution, this is a new spec. We will need a new document.
15:07:43 <Wip> ... This usually falls onto the editors, but it is a lot of work. It would be great to have volunteers.
15:07:50 <Wip> ... The more we have, the faster this will go
15:08:01 <Wip> ... There are web pages that show what each group requires
15:08:17 <Wip> ... This is something that anyone in the group can do. No deep knowledge of process required
15:08:42 <ottomorac> q?
15:08:43 <Wip> manu: This is a 1-3 hour amount of work
15:08:53 <ottomorac> ack: ivan
15:09:00 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:09:22 <Wip> ivan: In other working groups it has paid off already to have people volunteer to be continuously watchful of specific areas, e.g. internationalization
15:09:37 <Wip> ... The can be watchful of issues with this area in mind
15:09:52 <Wip> ... If there are questions for this group, they can manage the coordination
15:10:08 <ottomorac> Example of previous horizontal review for DID, for example:  https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/292
15:10:10 <Wip> ... This makes the end formal reviews simpler and easier
15:10:33 <ottomorac> Documentation on how to get horizontal review: https://www.w3.org/guide/documentreview/
15:10:33 <Wip> ... In this group accessibility is not really central. Internationalization maybe. Security and privacy definitely
15:10:46 <Wip> q+
15:10:56 <ottomorac> ack: wip
15:11:01 <KevinDean> scribe+
15:11:07 <ottomorac> q?
15:11:11 <ottomorac> ack wip
15:11:30 <KevinDean> wip: I think that sounds great. I wonder what is the next step to make this happen. Do we create issues? We need to identify all the groups and get volunteers.
15:11:47 <Wip> manu: I think the best thing to do is open an issue on all the specs we want horizontal review on
15:11:53 <KevinDean> scribe-
15:12:02 <ivan> q+
15:12:17 <Wip> ... In that issue we can assign volunteers, each person comment as to what group they want to take on
15:12:39 <Wip> ... Eventually we will open an issue on the respective groups tracker asking for a review
15:12:45 <Wip> +1 that sounds good to me
15:12:48 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:13:33 <Wip> ivan: We have labels in the repositories that are automatically added in the W3C repositories.
15:13:47 <Wip> ... Important to use these, as they flag issues for the respective groups to review
15:14:24 <Wip> ... These are all details, we need to figure out
15:14:26 <ottomorac> PROPOSAL: Manu to open a issue to track the horizontal reviews and assign volunteers
15:14:41 <manu> +1
15:14:43 <Wip> q+
15:14:47 <swcurran> +1
15:15:21 <KevinDean> wip: When we do proposals, it's good to do the /me command.
15:15:34 <KevinDean> ...Manu, you don't think we need a proposal.
15:16:00 <Wip> s/PROPOSAL: Manu to open a issue to track the horizontal reviews and assign volunteers//
15:16:34 <Wip> manu: Raising an issue now and will add it to the minutes
15:16:45 <manu> Here is the Horizontal Review issue for DID v1.1: https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/885
15:16:50 <Wip> ... Markus if you can raise a similar one for DID resolution
15:17:20 <Wip> q?
15:17:23 <Wip> ack Wip
15:17:34 <ottomorac> subtopic: DID Core Issue: Abstract Data Model
15:17:40 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #did
15:18:01 <bigbluehat> present+
15:18:05 <Wip> q+
15:18:18 <Wip> s/subtopic: DID Core Issue: Abstract Data Model//
15:18:28 <Wip> manu: Asking for volunteers please
15:18:33 <ottomorac> ottomorac I will volunteer for did resolution
15:18:41 <Wip> ottomorac: I will volunteer for DID resolution
15:19:07 <Wip> markus_sabadello: We need volunteers for each specification and each group
15:19:11 <ottomorac> ack wip
15:19:36 <KevinDean> wip: I get it. We need volunteers for each specification. And we need volunteers within that who will volunteer for individual parts.
15:19:43 <manu> +1 to that approach
15:19:56 <KevinDean> ...We should get volunteers for each spec and have them volunteer for sections within the spec in the issues themselves.
15:20:18 <KevinDean> ...Happy to volunteer and this is a great opportunity to learn the W3C process in a low-pressure environment.
15:20:26 <dlehn> present+
15:20:30 <markus_sabadello> Here is the Horizontal Review issue for DID Resolution v1.0: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/139
15:20:42 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
15:20:43 <swcurran> q+\
15:20:53 <ottomorac> ack swcurran
15:21:04 <Wip> q- \
15:21:18 <Wip> swcurran: Trying to figure out what work is involved
15:21:20 <manu> q+
15:21:23 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:21:28 <Wip> ... Looks like this has been done before, for DID core
15:21:45 <Wip> manu: Yep, this has been done for DID core. This should be easy. For DID resolution it will be more involved.
15:22:00 <Wip> ... Need most volunteers for DID resolution
15:22:01 <ottomorac> q?
15:22:27 <Wip> swcurran: The privacy and security review is an intense bit of work. More than an hour to three hours
15:22:40 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:22:45 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:23:13 <Wip> markus_sabadello: I will contribute to the DID resolution work. Not sure which group to focus on
15:23:17 <Wip> q+
15:23:20 <ottomorac> ack wip
15:23:36 <swcurran> timeline for completion?
15:23:42 <Wip> markus_sabadello: For the DID one, it says DID explainer. Do we need a separate DID resolution explainer
15:23:43 <Wip> manu: Yes
15:23:51 <Wip> ... unfortunately
15:24:22 <KevinDean> wip: I want to say that we should move on. We should send an email, let folks review what's required, and bring it up again next week.
15:24:27 <ottomorac> we should probably move on and send an email to get some volunteers
15:25:05 <ottomorac> subtopic: DID Core Issue: Abstract Data Model
15:25:25 <Wip> s/Topic/subtopic/
15:25:35 <ottomorac> RESOLUTION 1: Align DID Core with the Controller Document specification (https://www.w3.org/TR/controller-document/), and attempt to remove language around the Abstract Data Model.
15:25:45 <ottomorac> RESOLUTION 2: When profiling the Controller Document for the DID Document specification we will use JSON as a concrete representation, with language describing options for alternative representations.
15:26:00 <Wip> ottomorac: This is reviewing what we need for finalizing the abstract data model changes based on the resolution we passed
15:26:30 <manu> q+
15:26:34 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:26:34 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:26:47 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/855
15:27:04 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/855
15:27:08 <Wip> manu: The first resolution has an issues that is tracking it. Issue 855
15:27:46 <Wip> manu: I think this is ready for a PR
15:27:56 <ottomorac> q?
15:27:57 <Wip> ... Removing the discuss label
15:28:08 <Wip> ... ivan have we put in the media type request for CID
15:28:28 <Wip> ... I know we did the for application/did. Just checking now
15:28:45 <Wip> ... application/cid is not in there. We need to follow up on that
15:29:33 <Wip> manu: Raising an issue against the CID spec now
15:29:50 <Wip> q+
15:30:01 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/153
15:30:14 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:30:39 <Wip> markus_sabadello: With regard to simplifying the abstract data model, this has largely been addressed through alignment to the CID specification
15:30:58 <Wip> ... in resolution spec we have removed the resolve representation function. This simplifies things
15:31:12 <manu> q+ to speak to using INFRA.
15:31:22 <Wip> ... There is still a question about using the INFRA mechanism to specify data structures. There might be a discussion about replacing that with just JSON
15:31:28 <ottomorac> ack wip
15:31:54 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:31:54 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to speak to using INFRA.
15:32:14 <Wip> manu: I don't have a great sense of what might still need changes
15:32:32 <Wip> ... I dont think we should drop INFRA, because infra has a very clean map to JSON
15:32:42 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
15:32:48 <Wip> ... Will lead to questions around what you are doing with specific types of data
15:33:38 <Wip> ... For the DID spec part, there are areas of the data model spec that are INFRA defining the values of DID Core.
15:34:01 <Wip> ... You could argue that INFRA is an abstract data model. But there are members of the W3C that do no think this
15:34:22 <Wip> ... This is where i am struggling in the spec. We have been told to use INFRA, which arguable is an abstract data model
15:34:36 <Wip> ... We have been told by the TAG not to use an abstract data model
15:34:40 <Wip> ... A bit confusing
15:34:55 <ottomorac> q?
15:34:59 <Wip> ... I think we stick with INFRA and state the mapping from INFRA to JSON
15:35:15 <Wip> ... We have been told conflicting things. Challenging as an editor.
15:35:26 <Wip> I am arguing that the data model section with INFRA should not be deleted.
15:35:46 <Wip> ... Then there are the production and consumption rules for different representations that can be deleted.
15:36:08 <Wip> ... Maybe the JSONLD section. While keeping the rule that we said, you cannot break JSONLD processing that exists
15:36:20 <Wip> ... There are judgement calls to be made here
15:36:58 <Wip> ... Can you have multiple representations of a DID document. E.g. in CBOR. How do we tell people it is possible, while complying to the one format JSON that we are defining
15:37:13 <Wip> ... That language needs to be put in here
15:37:49 <Wip> ... The semantics of what is meant by the properties must match across different representations
15:37:56 <ottomorac> q?
15:38:18 <Wip> q+
15:38:24 <ottomorac> ack wip
15:38:44 <KevinDean> wip: I think that was great. That sounds like where the group thought it was at. Some of the changes haven't made it into the spec yet.
15:39:00 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:39:05 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:39:06 <KevinDean> ...Question for Markus. How does that impact the resolution spec? Does that mean that resolve should always return application/did?
15:39:20 <Wip> markus_sabadello: I agree, with manu we should keep the section about the data types
15:39:34 <Wip> ... and change the production and consuption section
15:39:50 <ottomorac> :-)
15:40:07 <Wip> ... We still have a resolution option called accept, that allows you to specify which content type you want back
15:40:13 <Wip> ... This is inspired by HTTP headers
15:40:29 <Wip> ... So you can still specify if you want a DID document in a different representation
15:41:04 <swcurran> Thank you, Manu!
15:41:30 <ottomorac> subtopic: DID Use Case Document
15:41:42 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases
15:41:44 <Wip> s/subtopic/Topic
15:41:47 <Wip> s/subtopic/Topic/
15:42:06 <Wip> ottomorac: This is just to kick off a discussion about what might be needed with the use case document
15:42:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:42:28 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: We as a group have not decided what we are doing with the Use case document
15:42:38 <Wip> ... What new use cases might we add
15:42:57 <ottomorac> q?
15:42:58 <Wip> ... Might nthere be new editors. Not yet spoken to Phil archer the current editor, but he may not be available
15:43:01 <manu> q+
15:43:06 <ivan> q+
15:43:11 <Wip> ... Asking the group for a review of the current document
15:43:12 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:43:23 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
15:43:29 <Wip> manu: JoeAndrieu I think it is always a good idea to do another pass through the document to see if anything looks dated
15:43:31 <Wip> ... That might be it
15:43:46 <Wip> ... May be interesting to also cover new use cases that we are seeing moving to pilot/production
15:43:57 <Wip> ... e.g. the use of DIDs in physical documents
15:44:23 <Wip> ... Not majorly different, but some people have been suprised that there are printable versions of DIDs/VCs
15:44:59 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:45:23 <Wip> ivan: Wondering if there are use cases that relate to the resolution document
15:45:33 <Wip> ... This is the only new thing we are bringing in in this working group
15:45:49 <Wip> ... You might answer that this has no end users, but I think it is worth thinking about
15:45:50 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:45:56 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
15:46:05 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: Yeah, I like what you are pointing about about DID resolution
15:46:30 <Wip> ... Part of what we are talking about in the resolution architecture section, we could have usecases that give reasons for the different architecutres
15:46:33 <Wip> +1 I like that to
15:46:35 <Wip> q+
15:46:38 <ottomorac> ack wip
15:46:41 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:46:50 <manu> q+ to -1 separate document :)
15:46:59 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:46:59 <KevinDean> wip: Is that a separate document or a separate section of the current document?
15:47:29 <Wip> markus_sabadello: not sure what a separate document for DID resolution would look like.
15:47:33 <ottomorac> q?
15:47:49 <Wip> ... I think there are narrow use cases that use DIDs but not DID resoluition
15:47:54 <Wip> ... Makes sense to just have one document
15:47:54 <ivan> +1 to markus_sabadello
15:48:14 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:48:14 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to -1 separate document :)
15:48:16 <Wip> ... What Joe said about querying multiple resolvers, is not really a new use case. But more of a security thing
15:48:18 <swcurran> +1
15:48:45 <Wip> manu: I dont think we need a separate document. Adding a section or specific use cases that focus on resolution makes sense
15:49:13 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: That is great feedback. We still need to figure out editors.
15:49:21 <Wip> ... Let me reach out to Phil and see
15:49:38 <manu> q+
15:49:44 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:49:46 <Wip> ... But I think we should also send an email out asking for Editors to help support the document
15:50:05 <Wip> manu: +1 to that. Maybe we could actively recruit some people who might want to get into the work of the community
15:50:23 <Wip> ... Some people are looking for places to contribute. This might be a great entry point
15:50:47 <Wip> ottomorac: +1 to that suggestion
15:50:51 <Wip> ottomorac: Moving on
15:51:12 <KevinDean> wip: There's only time for one issue.
15:51:34 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/539
15:51:50 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/539
15:52:13 <Wip> ... This issue is clean up herd privacy issue. Manu suggested closing this
15:52:18 <Wip> q+
15:52:30 <ottomorac> ack Wip
15:53:07 <Wip> Wip: lets ask Joe what he thinks ...
15:54:48 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: I think maybe we close this and move on. Lots of separate threads on this
15:55:15 <Wip> https://w3c.github.io/did/#herd-privacy
15:55:15 <manu> q+
15:55:23 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:55:41 <Wip> manu: I forget what the new term. Herd refers to animals some people dont like it
15:55:47 <Wip> ... So maybe its group privacy
15:56:06 <Wip> ... Fairly easy change to make
15:56:13 <TallTed> "crowd privacy" ... "mob privacy" ...
15:56:31 <TallTed> "population privacy"
15:56:32 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: lets open PR get that in then close the issue
15:57:26 <ottomorac> Next Time: APAC Call
15:57:29 <Wip> ottomorac: We are at time, next week will APAC call
15:57:33 <ivan> q+
15:57:49 <TallTed> 8pm ET next week. Use your computer calendars!
15:58:18 <Wip> ivan: Reminding people in Europe we change to summer time. We will be back to the normal times
15:59:07 <Wip> ottomorac: Thanks all
15:59:32 <ottomorac> rrsagent, make minutes
15:59:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-did-minutes.html ottomorac
15:59:46 <ottomorac> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
15:59:47 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/539#issuecomment-2758574981
16:00:08 <ottomorac> zakim, end the meeting
16:00:08 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been JoeAndrieu, ottomorac, swcurran, TallTed, ivan, KevinDean, Wip, bigbluehat, dlehn
16:00:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:00:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-did-minutes.html Zakim
16:00:18 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ottomorac; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:00:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
16:00:37 <ottomorac> rrsagent, please excuse us
16:00:37 <RRSAgent> I see no action items