14:54:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:54:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/05/08-did-irc
14:54:47 <ottomorac> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:54:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/08-did-minutes.html ottomorac
14:55:12 <ottomorac> rrsagent, make logs public
14:55:20 <ottomorac> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
14:55:32 <ottomorac> Chair: ottomorac
14:55:54 <ottomorac> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025May/0002.html
14:56:17 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
14:56:21 <ottomorac> present+
15:01:01 <manu> present+
15:02:00 <ivan> present+
15:02:36 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:02:40 <markus_sabadello> present+
15:02:42 <markus_sabadello> scribe+
15:03:26 <TallTed> present+
15:05:00 <ivan> q+
15:05:00 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: Today's agenda is we summarize the last Special Topic call, then we look at DID Core and DID Resolution PRs and issues
15:05:04 <ottomorac> Topic:  DID Rubric & Traits Special Topic Summary
15:05:25 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:06:04 <markus_sabadello> ivan: By the time we have the next call, the whole suite of VC specs will be published as Recommendations. There will also be a press release. This also includes the CID spec on which we will have a normative dependency in the new DID Core spec.
15:06:39 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Seven documents in one go! Just to show the amount of work that is behind it. Two of them are very big.
15:06:59 <ottomorac> Topic:  DID Rubric & Traits Special Topic Summary
15:07:26 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: Summary of Special Topic Call on 30-Apr: Agreed to have DID traits and DID Rubric combine. We continue the traits work at DIF, push to get 1.0 approval at the DIF Steering Committee. And in the meantime, start working on incorporation into the Rubric. The target for the 1.0 spec of DID traits is the middle of June.  Minutes here:
15:07:26 <markus_sabadello> https://www.w3.org/2025/04/30-did-minutes.html
15:08:11 <ottomorac> q?
15:08:13 <manu> q+
15:08:17 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:08:38 <ivan> q+
15:08:40 <markus_sabadello> manu: Was there any discussion about integrating any of the DID Traits work into the DID Extensions Registry?
15:09:08 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: Yes there was a discussion on that. We need to figure out what that will look like. DID Traits are boolean, Rubric are more open-ended. But we did discuss this.
15:09:17 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:10:06 <manu> q+
15:10:09 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Administrative question.. Does it mean the Rubric document becomes a joint work between the two groups, with joint copyright or any formalism? Or will the DIF group simply release the document to this WG? I just want to make sure this is done cleanly.
15:10:33 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:10:39 <markus_sabadello> ivan: My conversation was that it would be okay to donate or graduate this to W3C, and that there would be a process for that.
15:11:24 <markus_sabadello> manu: I think you are right, the process would be that DIF would finalize the spec at DIF, publish the work, and then an agreement to allow W3C to re-use the content to incorporate it into one of our documents. We need to collaborate with DIF on the required paperwork.
15:11:36 <markus_sabadello> manu: I don't think it will take a lot of work.
15:11:54 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Fine, as long as everyone agrees and it's done properly.
15:12:03 <manu> yes, agreed -- it will be done according to process.
15:12:12 <ottomorac> Topic:  DID Core Issue Processing-
15:12:23 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22class%202%22
15:12:57 <TallTed> s/Issue Processing-/Issue Processing
15:13:29 <ottomorac> Subtopic: Horizontal Review for DID v1.1 #885
15:13:31 <manu> q+
15:13:33 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/885
15:13:36 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:14:02 <markus_sabadello> manu: We discussed that we need to do horizontal reviews for DID Resolution and also new version of DID Core.
15:14:12 <markus_sabadello> manu: Sharing my screen..
15:14:43 <markus_sabadello> manu: For horizontal review, we need a few things. One is Explainer document, to explain what we do on a high level. We had created one six years ago that is fine, but probably needed an update.
15:15:11 <markus_sabadello> manu: I created a new Explainer document, using ChatGPT's new research mode, based on the spec.
15:15:41 <markus_sabadello> manu: I did go through the document and hand-edited every line and paragraph.
15:16:27 <markus_sabadello> manu: One interesting thing was that the LLM did a really good job. This is "research mode". ChatGPT crunches for 45 min. It did a good job summarizing the sections, based on our latest specification.
15:16:55 <markus_sabadello> manu: The Explainer is done. I suggest we try this for DID Resolution as well, unless the editors want to do it manually.
15:17:37 <markus_sabadello> manu: I raised Horizontal Review with the Internationalization group, so there is an issue now on their tracker. It mentions that we're not changing much compared to what they reviewed before. We'd like a response before TPAC.
15:17:52 <markus_sabadello> manu: The other review that was raised is for Accessibility.
15:18:07 <markus_sabadello> manu: And I raised the TAG  Design Review
15:18:15 <markus_sabadello> manu: Haven't raised PING Review and Security Review yet.
15:18:42 <markus_sabadello> manu: We don't have access to that Google doc anymore, need to find out who owns that Google doc and can give access.
15:19:22 <markus_sabadello> manu: I'll wait a week or two to see if someone has access to that document, otherwise we'll recreate them from scratch.
15:19:41 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: Good job manu
15:19:52 <manu> q+
15:19:52 <ottomorac> Subtopic:  821 - Ambiguity regarding PATH and DID URLs
15:20:11 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:21:09 <markus_sabadello> manu: I'm wondering if we should ask TAG if they want an Explainer document, or if an Introduction section in the spe is sufficient. We can ask them are you sure this is the right process.
15:21:25 <markus_sabadello> manu: It's extra work for the editors that could be used to process other things.
15:21:40 <ivan> +1
15:22:15 <markus_sabadello> manu: This would be an opportunity to bring up that there might be a better way to do it.
15:22:37 <ottomorac> Subtopic:  821 - Ambiguity regarding PATH and DID URLs
15:22:42 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/821
15:23:15 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: This was discussed a few times, there was consensus in the group that this deserves a special topic call.
15:23:26 <ivan> q+
15:23:35 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:23:50 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I remember there was a lot of discussion in the 1.0 work
15:24:06 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I don't know how many DID methods exist now, is this a feature that is really used?
15:24:26 <markus_sabadello> ivan: If it is not, we might think about simply removing it or deprecating.
15:24:36 <manu> q+
15:24:40 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:24:40 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:24:58 <markus_sabadello> manu: I don't think it's used broadly, but it's being used.
15:25:23 <markus_sabadello> manu: I don't know if it's really pressing. I do think we wanted symmetry with how this works in HTTPS. I think it deserves a special topic call.
15:26:20 <markus_sabadello> manu: We discussed having DIDs that point to e.g. pictures or writing or anything, and you wanted DIDs to refer to any of those things.
15:26:45 <markus_sabadello> manu: We should probably try to have the discussion what's the right thing to do here.
15:26:45 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:26:49 <ottomorac> scribe+
15:27:29 <ottomorac> markus: yes I dont know remember exactly what the issue was... there are did methods that use a path component... did methods that are web based mostly.....
15:27:51 <markus_sabadello> scribe+
15:27:55 <ottomorac> scribe-
15:28:29 <manu> q+
15:28:41 <markus_sabadello> AlexTweeddale: We have written a spec called DID Linked Resources, which defines how to use a DID as a directory, and have files associated through path or query patterns. We use this e.g. for schemas and trust registrires.
15:29:03 <markus_sabadello> AlexTweeddale: Each file can be signed with the same key materials as in the "verificationMethod" sections
15:29:07 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:29:25 <ivan> thanks for that feedback indeed
15:29:54 <markus_sabadello> manu: Great, +1 to that, this gives us something concrete to talk about. Let's have a special topic call. A number of us know this exists, so it would be useful to hear about details.
15:30:17 <markus_sabadello> manu: We should discuss if the group agrees with this approach, and if there are any concerns or conflicts with specs.
15:30:38 <markus_sabadello> AlexTweeddale: It would be a good time to have a call on this topic.
15:30:59 <markus_sabadello> ivan: How about 21st May?
15:31:05 <markus_sabadello> AlexTweeddale: No objections.
15:31:07 <markus_sabadello> manu: +1
15:31:13 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello: +1
15:31:17 <tweeddalex> tweeddalex has joined #did
15:31:45 <markus_sabadello> s/ivan/ottomorac/
15:31:47 <tweeddalex> Hey Otto, am I in the correct chat now?
15:31:50 <ottomorac> Subtopic:  884 - DID needs a proper vocabulary specification
15:32:00 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/884
15:32:07 <manu> s/Hey Otto, am I in the correct chat now?//
15:32:52 <ivan> q+
15:32:52 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: We need a vocabulary for the DID spec, we are currently kind of borrowing it from the CID spec. The issue is connected to 137 which discusses if we should JSON or JSON-LD for DID resolution.  Probably a vocab is required for both.  Then Ivan generated a sample vocab file.
15:33:05 <manu> q+
15:33:34 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:33:57 <CMickeyB> CMickeyB has joined #did
15:34:12 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I will have to see with manu how exactly we put it in the repository. The rest I presume is the same as we did over there. These are things that can be done easily.
15:34:14 <manu> q+
15:34:27 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
15:34:43 <markus_sabadello> ivan: There was a discussion that we had on the DID Resolution side. It seems we have converged to the opinion that the DID Resolution can work without JSON-LD.
15:35:06 <markus_sabadello> ivan: If DID Resolution does not use JSON-LD, then there are less dependencies.
15:35:32 <markus_sabadello> ivan: This is https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/137 in DID Resolution about using JSON-LD
15:35:33 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:35:41 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:36:18 <markus_sabadello> manu: ivan what you're saying we need to record the decision if DID Resolution will use JSON-LD or not.
15:36:34 <markus_sabadello> manu: Then the only thing we need to discuss is the DID vocabulary.
15:36:55 <markus_sabadello> manu: My recollection is that last time we talked about it, there were 1 or 2 terms we needed to define (service, serviceEndpoint)
15:36:57 <markus_sabadello> ivan: That's right
15:37:17 <markus_sabadello> manu: This makes it easier. We need a vocabulary and it will have these two terms in it. You and I can put this together.
15:37:30 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:37:35 <ottomorac> scribe+
15:38:00 <manu> q+
15:38:17 <ottomorac> Markus:  Yes I have questions did resolution and JSON-LD....  but after this discussion I am fine that we dont need JSON LD resolution...
15:38:32 <ottomorac> markus: when we say vocab, which are we talking about?
15:38:36 <ottomorac> scribe-
15:38:37 <markus_sabadello> scribe+
15:38:39 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:39:12 <ivan> q+
15:39:25 <markus_sabadello> manu: markus_sabadello We would be generating a human-readable document that is the vocabulary, and it will have machine-readable equivalent to it. We would generate a JSON-LD file. We have done this before for VC data model, Bitstring status list, etc.
15:39:35 <ivan> q-
15:39:52 <markus_sabadello> manu: We are having a discussion about requiring JSON-LD in DID resolution. Thank you markus_sabadello for the update on your opinion
15:40:33 <markus_sabadello> manu: I'd like to ask if we want to make it optional. Every time we have the discussion, we want to make two communities happy about it. If we don't create a DID Resolution context, it would mean you couldn't use JSON-LD at all.
15:40:36 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:41:15 <markus_sabadello> manu: So we could still give people the option to do JSON-LD processing. The downside is it would be a significant amount of work for us
15:41:51 <ivan> q+
15:41:53 <markus_sabadello> manu: The strongest argument I see is to be able to sign a response, i.e. a trusted response.
15:42:16 <markus_sabadello> manu: Counterargument is that you could still use signed responses using JCS
15:42:23 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:42:27 <ottomorac> scribe+
15:42:50 <ottomorac> markus: Yes... I would be fine with either solution... making it optional also makes sense....
15:43:30 <manu> q+
15:44:02 <ottomorac> markus: I would maybe also add that we have seen some innovation when it comes to metadata and things that are added for did resolution metadata, such as the did linked resources mentioned earlier in this call by tweeddalex
15:44:06 <ottomorac> scribe-
15:44:09 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:44:30 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Let's not get into a long philosophical debate.
15:44:45 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Your argument that you could sign it, you also countered the same argument.
15:45:25 <markus_sabadello> ivan: The reason why someone uses JSON-LD is because you want to take that piece of data, and you want to combine it with data from elsewhere, for a "greater purpose". You can pull together vocabularies from different places.
15:45:54 <markus_sabadello> ivan: When we come to complex verifiable credentials, using JSON-LD for VCs makes a lot of sense. That's where JSON-LD is useful.
15:46:37 <markus_sabadello> ivan: As long as it's a closed thing which is used in a focused way - which I think is the case with DID Resolution - then I don't see any reason why JSON-LD is useful.
15:46:58 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:47:03 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Do we intend to mix DID Resolution Responses with other data? If the response is no, then I don't see any argument for using JSON-LD. Even using it optionally blurs the picture for me.
15:47:38 <markus_sabadello> manu: I agree with that line of reasoning. To offer something that makes this easier, we can also start with a JSON-only approach and always add JSON-LD later.
15:47:54 <markus_sabadello> manu: Adding extensions would be done in a "JSON-friendly" way.
15:48:24 <ivan> +1 to Manu on later
15:48:32 <markus_sabadello> manu: We can start with no vocabulary or context for DID Resolution. And we can always add it later.
15:48:38 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:48:45 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:48:51 <ottomorac> scribe+
15:49:00 <manu> q+
15:49:12 <ottomorac> markus: yes fine with that.. would like to see some guidance on the media type....
15:49:18 <markus_sabadello> scribe+
15:49:26 <markus_sabadello> manu: Would suggest application/did-resolution
15:49:26 <ottomorac> scribe-
15:49:58 <markus_sabadello> manu: We have experienced that using + es can be complicated
15:50:25 <markus_sabadello> manu: This will require a PR to make the change
15:50:48 <ottomorac> Subtopic:  844 - How to Understand the DID Identification
15:50:54 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/844
15:51:17 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac:  Language determined to be vague and no response since we discussed in December. Should we close it?
15:51:33 <manu> +1 to mark it pending close
15:51:39 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:52:19 <ottomorac> Topic:  DID Resolution PR Processing:
15:52:32 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/146
15:52:36 <ivan> s/Processing:/Processing/
15:52:40 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:52:48 <ottomorac> Migrate errors to use problem details #146
15:53:04 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:53:24 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:53:27 <ottomorac> scribe+
15:53:43 <ottomorac> markus: yes its a pulll request from Will to update the error handling...
15:54:02 <ottomorac> markus:  I think the PR is good and I am happy with it... I made some small suggestions...
15:54:53 <ottomorac> markus: also agree with alignment with CID spec....
15:55:32 <ottomorac> Topic:  DID Resolution Issue Processing
15:55:49 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/53
15:55:55 <ottomorac> Disallow JSON-LD remote context retrieval #53EditNew issue
15:56:00 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:56:24 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:57:42 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: Should be a straightforward one?  Remove retrieval should be a normative statement
15:57:50 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello: This needs to be assigned to someone.
15:57:57 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: I can take this, as my first issue
15:58:01 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello: This would be great!
15:58:23 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: We'll be in touch regarding the Special Topic call
15:58:29 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: Any other comments?
15:58:37 <markus_sabadello> ottomorac: Thank you!
16:01:18 <ottomorac> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/08-did-minutes.html ottomorac
16:02:18 <ottomorac> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
16:02:19 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/885#issuecomment-2863570584
16:02:20 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/821#issuecomment-2863570631
16:02:22 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/884#issuecomment-2863570675
16:02:22 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/844#issuecomment-2863570728
16:02:23 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/146#issuecomment-2863570777
16:02:24 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/53#issuecomment-2863570819
16:02:41 <ottomorac> zakim, end the meeting
16:02:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ottomorac, manu, ivan, markus_sabadello, TallTed
16:02:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/08-did-minutes.html Zakim
16:02:51 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ottomorac; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:02:51 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
16:19:06 <ottomorac> ottomorac has left #did
16:20:24 <ottomorac> ottomorac has joined #did
16:20:29 <ottomorac> ottomorac has left #did
16:20:39 <ottomorac> ottomorac has joined #did
16:21:24 <ottomorac> rrsagent, please excuse us
16:21:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items