13:54:07 RRSAgent has joined #did 13:54:11 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/04/30-did-irc 13:54:18 rrsaagent, draft minutes 13:54:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:54:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/30-did-minutes.html Wip 13:54:29 rrsagent, make logs public 13:54:47 Meeting: Decentralized Identifier WG Special Topic Call 13:54:55 Chair: Wip 13:55:10 Agenda: DID Rubric and Traits Discussion 13:58:06 JoeAndrieu has joined #did 13:58:54 denkeni has joined #did 13:59:32 jceb has joined #did 14:01:53 ottomorac has joined #did 14:04:02 present+ 14:04:07 bigbluehat has joined #did 14:04:26 present` 14:04:27 present+ 14:04:29 scribe+ 14:04:30 present+ 14:04:38 present+ 14:04:44 present+ 14:05:32 Wip: today we're talking about the DID rubric and trait stuff 14:05:40 ... mainly looking for how to move these forward 14:05:56 ... we did pass a resolution which states: 14:06:06 https://www.w3.org/2025/02/20-did-minutes.html#0130 14:06:11 ... work with traits and rubric editors to bring them into the W3C 14:06:49 ... there are questions around the registration process also 14:06:54 ... JoeAndrieu maybe you can start? 14:07:18 JoeAndrieu: the rubric itself can handle booleans like the traits work started 14:07:26 ... there are good questions in here 14:07:36 ... we do need to weigh who's doing the analysis 14:07:45 ... and I'd love to get more traits folks involved 14:07:50 ... to see how we can combine these things 14:08:00 ... Wip and I have also been exploring turning this into JSON 14:08:11 ... right now you have to do some rather sophisticated HTML 14:08:17 ... and know how the numbering works 14:08:23 ... and I think that's slowing submissions 14:08:29 ... so I'd like to get that JSON format done 14:08:37 ... and then work on incorporating traits 14:09:06 jceb: I'm happy to work on that 14:09:10 ... two questions 14:09:24 ... do we keep the specification up at the DIF and then import traits into the rubric? 14:09:25 q+ 14:09:29 ... that seems like how we'd start 14:09:40 ... and then maybe when it's all moved over, we shut down the one at the DIF? 14:10:00 ... and the other question is how/when we incorporate traits into the extension registration process 14:10:06 q+ 14:10:07 ... should we do the rubric first? 14:10:14 ack Wip 14:10:15 ... or do both in parallel? 14:10:33 Wip: I did want to mention a previous resolution around making the rubric a W3C registry 14:10:43 ... so that would mean it exists beyond the lifecycle of this WG 14:10:52 ... with some clear policies around how it's maintained 14:11:08 ... the rubric as a registry gives us some means to do that long term 14:11:31 q? 14:11:32 ack JoeAndrieu 14:11:44 ... we may have to think through the timing especially around this JSON structure 14:11:49 JoeAndrieu: importing would be the easy lift 14:12:02 ... the rubric does let one cite a source 14:12:14 ... so we could continue to reference the DIF document 14:12:27 ... so when we incorporate them we can point to the traits work 14:12:34 ... and then memorialize it when it's ready 14:12:43 ... that seems better than "shutting it down" 14:13:01 q+ 14:13:03 ... once these are in JSON we could also use these for more dynamic uses like filtering, etc. 14:13:08 q+ 14:13:09 ack ottomorac 14:13:37 ottomorac: this pathway makes sense. There are some things for me and jceb to iron out at DIF 14:13:39 q+ to mention you could do a rubric evaluation with just the "traits" criteria 14:13:51 ... so is the vision then for both of these to be extensions on the registry? 14:14:26 ... mostly trying to know how to guide DID method authors 14:14:30 ack jceb 14:14:46 jceb: these are different questions, so maybe replies to ottomorac first 14:14:52 q+ jceb 14:15:04 JoeAndrieu: we're going to have a registry for the rubric 14:15:16 ... and we're going to incorporate traits into the rubric 14:15:34 ... but the rubric itself is about explaining the questions and not about being a storage location for the answers 14:15:47 ... I wish we didn't have to put any methods in there 14:15:55 ... we'll incorporate some things in the rebric 14:15:59 s/rebric/rubric 14:16:15 ... the extensions registry is where people could provide their own self-assertions 14:16:19 ack jceb 14:16:25 ... I have some doubts about that, but it still may be the right place to start 14:16:47 jceb: regarding the name DID traits. Will we keep it somehow? or will this just become the "big rubric"? 14:17:04 ... the other question I had is around how the rubric will become a registry 14:17:08 ... could you share more 14:17:16 Wip: I'll try and answer the registry bit first 14:17:17 q+ about keeping did traits or absorbing them into rubric 14:17:22 q+ to about keeping did traits or absorbing them into rubric 14:17:25 ... the W3C registries are a new thing at the W3C 14:17:37 ... essentially a group defines what goes into the lists of things and how they get in there 14:18:06 ... then you also appoint a group which maintains those rules long term--beyond the lifecycle of a single WG 14:18:13 ack Wip 14:18:13 Wip, you wanted to mention you could do a rubric evaluation with just the "traits" criteria 14:18:23 ... we did want to explore that for both the rubric and DID methods 14:18:31 ... we have talked about the naming of the rubric 14:18:40 ... you can think of it as a list of criteria 14:18:50 ... currently, there are not answers that are true/false 14:19:08 ... but when we incorporate the traits work, then we'd have Boolean answers available 14:19:23 ... there's no requirement in the rubric that you have to fill the whole thing out 14:19:30 ... you can focus on what applies to your usecase 14:19:43 ack JoeAndrieu 14:19:43 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to about keeping did traits or absorbing them into rubric 14:19:43 Like minimum criteria? 14:20:03 ... but we may still want to have criteria against which each thing is measured against--so a limited set of required questions 14:20:30 JoeAndrieu: that's an interesting idea. It may be controversial because it limits who can get onto the list. 14:20:50 ... when we started this none of the W3C registry stuff existed, so we're still very much in a learning curve 14:21:05 ... this group can produce a bunch of notes, etc., but their time boxed to the WG 14:21:20 ... but if we put these things in an registry, they can live longer than the WG 14:21:23 +1 14:21:34 ... and we can state who will maintain it beyond the WG 14:21:42 ... which could include the Credentials Community Group 14:22:06 ... One question I still have is how we add the traits. Maybe we still call them traits and have a section just for those Boolean questions 14:22:29 ... but it may be better to group them into the categories we already have--security, privacy, governance, etc. 14:22:34 Wip: thanks JoeAndrieu 14:22:40 ... I'd love to hear from others on the call 14:22:41 q+ 14:22:46 ack ottomorac 14:23:00 q+ 14:23:16 ack Wip 14:23:28 ottomorac: I think the minimum number of traits you'd have to pick is an interesting idea...I'd like to hear more 14:23:38 q+ 14:23:53 Wip: I think what I said was "recommend"--I agree with JoeAndrieu that we don't want to block people from joining the list 14:23:57 ... that was opposed earlier 14:23:57 https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/issues/619 14:24:12 ack JoeAndrieu 14:24:13 ... so this would be more about recommendation that folks should aim at a specific set at least 14:24:18 JoeAndrieu: I think that's right 14:24:28 ... there are challenges to having a registry at all 14:24:33 ... I would rather not have one 14:24:43 ... it cuts cross grain to a decentralized technology 14:25:14 ... So one thought is we may not even need to recommend them explicitly. 14:25:37 sounds good 14:25:43 ... we could simply use them for filtering, and that promotion of them in the UI would naturally incentivize them being filled out. 14:26:04 Wip: I'll try to summarize 14:26:12 dmitriz has joined #did 14:26:30 ... it feels like we do still want to incorporate traits into the rubric 14:26:39 q+ to mention schema 14:26:42 ... but that there may be more work around what that integration looks like 14:26:48 ... but that's likely up to the editors 14:26:55 ack JoeAndrieu 14:26:55 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention schema 14:27:02 ... so maybe we can focus next on what the next steps are outside of this call 14:27:18 JoeAndrieu: the way we've been thinking about the JSON Schema has been focused on adding to the rubric 14:27:35 ... but if some version of this will go into the extensions registry, then we may want to rethink what we have now 14:27:42 ... so that it's easier for both uses 14:27:58 https://www.w3.org/2025/02/20-did-minutes.html#0eda 14:28:15 Wip: this work on building a JSON-based foundation for the rubric's rendering could use some help also 14:28:33 ... we need help around figuring out the JSON and then how we're going to populate the HTML 14:29:08 ... so I think we do need to talk through what next steps are, but maybe that happens elsewhere 14:29:24 JoeAndrieu: I think it's a little abstract now 14:29:47 jceb: adding the extensions registry to the considerations is really where I'd like to focus 14:29:51 q+ 14:30:00 ... and you have way more insights into that work, and it'd be great to learn more 14:30:06 ... I'm happy to help where I can 14:30:29 ... my main takeaway for today is that we continue the traits work at DIF 14:30:34 q+ to ask about timeline 14:30:37 ... push toward 1.0 and get approval for it there 14:30:47 ... and in the meantime, start working on incorporation into the rubric 14:30:51 ack ottomorac 14:30:52 Wip: that sounds good to me 14:31:01 ottomorac: my thinking is the same as jceb's 14:31:15 ... I need to help close out the open issues, so we can accelerate getting to the 1.0 14:31:24 ... jceb , how long do you think that may take? 14:31:29 jceb: maybe middle of June? 14:31:42 ... then we can align with Kim around the next steering committee meeting 14:31:47 ack Wip 14:31:47 Wip, you wanted to ask about timeline 14:31:57 Wip: great. that timeline sounds good 14:32:10 q+ on DID method standardization, guidebook for DID methods 14:32:14 ack denkeni 14:32:14 denkeni, you wanted to comment on DID method standardization, guidebook for DID methods 14:32:29 KevinDean has joined #did 14:32:35 denkeni: I'm happy to see the rubric and the traits combine 14:33:07 ... and it would be a great starting point and more practical as a starting point than DID core 14:33:18 ... that's a more ambitious goal for the rubric 14:33:49 ... seeing the DID methods scored in the rubric will ultimately lead to people making choices from that data 14:34:07 ... so emphasizing some methods during the standardization process may be helpful 14:34:33 Wip: my understanding is that DID method standardization selection has been happening at DIF in part using the traits work for guidance 14:34:52 ... and I think it does make sense to use them for guidance 14:34:53 markus_sabadello has joined #did 14:34:59 present+ 14:35:12 present+ 14:35:16 ... where an organization is stating which traits they are selecting methods on up-front even before standardization 14:35:35 q? 14:35:35 q+ 14:35:37 q+ 14:35:39 ... I agree with denkeni that this is really about helping people do evaluations 14:35:41 ack ottomorac 14:35:53 ottomorac: just to expand and agree with you. Exactly what denkeni said. 14:36:00 q+ 14:36:15 ... opinions around compliance and knowing how organizations are making their decisions 14:36:31 ... this set of criteria can help them express their opinions 14:36:40 ack JoeAndrieu 14:36:49 ... the market is telling us there's too many methods, so we need a way to find the ones we want 14:37:17 JoeAndrieu: a question for denkeni , were you considering expanding that rubric to analyze things besides methods? 14:37:34 denkeni: yes, mostly around correlating this work with DID method standardizations 14:37:59 JoeAndrieu: if it's not a DID method that we're evaluating, what else would we analyze? 14:38:29 denkeni: when an organization is working on a standardization, they will set their criteria 14:38:49 ... it will be interesting to see when different DID methods by different standardized processes 14:38:57 q+ to suggest different orgs can suggest additional criteria 14:39:17 ... but on the other hand it's interesting to see the W3C and DIF work together on rubric and traits 14:39:44 JoeAndrieu: great. thank you. It's primarily been a conversation around making it possible for each person and organization to choose their questions and traits to express what they want 14:39:59 q+ 14:40:15 ack markus_sabadello 14:40:18 ... the US federal government is working on expressing their criteria as is the EU, and having something like the rubric and traits would make expressing and evaluating things easier 14:40:42 markus_sabadello: quickly about the DID method evaluation, we do have a working group in DIF around standardization of a few methods 14:40:51 ... but DID methods can be standardized anywhere 14:41:19 ... on the DIF side, we've been trying to come up with some criteria to determine what criteria we should use to choose what to standardize 14:41:31 ... we've recently been talking about DIF endorsed and DIF recommended 14:42:24 ... but that we would not say certain traits or rubric questions were good or bad--just the stability/value of the DID method regardless of whether it's "on the Web" or uses a blockchain or whatever 14:42:37 ack Wip 14:42:37 Wip, you wanted to suggest different orgs can suggest additional criteria 14:42:48 ... but we do care that these methods properly fill out the rubric and traits, so understanding what they support/do would help everyone 14:43:14 Wip: organizations should also feel empowered to build criteria they value, and the rubric could be the place where they do that 14:43:22 ack KevinDean 14:43:31 ... I think many things you expressed markus_sabadello could go into the rubric 14:43:51 KevinDean: from past experience at GS1, there will be a push to have multiple registries 14:44:20 ... some governments will not be comfortable with a registry that is under the control of a single country 14:45:15 ... they may want it to be hosted only in their environment--or one they trust 14:45:38 ... we hit this wrt to DNS standardization 14:45:46 q? 14:45:48 Wip: I think this is a future concern, but thanks for raising it 14:46:46 ... we should continue to discuss--which criteria do we want to recommend...or do we even want to do that 14:46:50 q? 14:47:03 q+ 14:47:07 Wip: any final thoughts? 14:47:09 ack ottomorac 14:47:10 ottomorac: maybe next steps? 14:47:39 ... maybe in the next month we focus on our own tasks and then come back in June to discuss more steps? 14:47:47 Wip: that sounds good. We'll leave this on the calendar. 14:48:01 ... enjoy your days! 14:48:03 ... bye all 15:01:31 ottomorac has left #did 15:22:46 brent_ has joined #did 17:02:35 Zakim has left #did 17:38:44 ottomorac has joined #did 19:05:38 brent_ has joined #did 19:44:32 brent_ has joined #did 22:32:09 dmitriz has joined #did