04:32:01 rrsagent, bye 04:32:11 I see no action items 06:41:26 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 06:41:26 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/06/03-vcwg-irc 06:41:28 RRSAgent, make logs Public 06:41:30 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 06:41:45 Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group F2F, Brussels, 2nd day 06:42:20 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/5a380851-00b0-4c47-a28f-e3b687db5800/ 06:42:40 date: 2026-06-03 06:43:02 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2026-06-03: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/5a380851-00b0-4c47-a28f-e3b687db5800/ 06:49:11 present+ 06:49:17 present+ ganeesh 06:49:23 present+ brent 06:54:03 denkeni has joined #vcwg 06:56:16 present+ phila 06:58:24 present+ pchampin 06:58:37 present+ elaine 06:58:46 present+ manu 06:59:12 present+ wip 06:59:51 present+ ivoladenius 07:01:16 present+ capell 07:01:30 phila has joined #vcwg 07:03:10 present+ suzanne 07:03:46 JennieM has joined #vcwg 07:03:53 present+ 07:05:52 present+ michaelshea 07:06:33 exe has joined #vcwg 07:07:16 michaelshea has joined #vcwg 07:07:22 present+ schmittner 07:07:32 present+ joe 07:07:54 present+ carsten 07:07:56 present+ 07:08:41 gannan has joined #vcwg 07:08:46 manu_ has joined #vcwg 07:08:46 JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg 07:08:54 SteveC has joined #vcwg 07:08:54 IvoLadenius has joined #vcwg 07:09:07 present+ 07:09:26 Wip has joined #vcwg 07:09:51 pchampin has joined #vcwg 07:10:01 present+ 07:10:30 Chairs go over logistics for activity and dinner. 07:10:30 present+ Waheed 07:10:40 present+ 07:11:16 present+ 07:11:29 present+ carolynn 07:11:58 brent has joined #vcwg 07:12:02 scribe+ 07:12:22 present+ kevin 07:12:37 phila: phil opens the meeting 07:12:41 michaelshea has joined #vcwg 07:12:57 KevinDean has joined #vcwg 07:13:03 present+ 07:13:21 Sebastien: EECC introduces himself - interest in EU wallet 07:13:45 phila: Sebastiens company supplies GS1 with VC tech 07:14:13 Ganesh: From digital Bazaar says hello 07:14:37 present+ 07:15:27 Elaine has joined #vcwg 07:15:32 Topic: Business Wallet Vocab 07:15:37 s 07:16:43 Pierre Antoine: W3C staff contact of DID WG and JSON-LD WG. Interested in vocab discusion 07:17:25 present+ 07:17:28 present+ 07:17:31 wes-smith has joined #vcwg 07:18:03 -> Charter https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/vc/charters/active/ 07:18:12 present+ wes-smith 07:18:29 csteocker has joined #VCWG 07:18:30 https://w3c.github.io/vc-charter-2026/ 07:20:14 csteocker: Will introduce DPP vocab and (tentative) business vocabulary - for business wallet. Company registry, membership credentials, etc. Alot of work done in europe - but reaching out to US and Asia. 07:21:27 csteocker: Looking at UNTP and also W3C recognised entitites as basis to create interoperable voacb. Scope is things like KYC for supplier on-boarding - hopes to facilitate change from months to minuters. 07:21:27 brent8 has joined #vcwg 07:23:09 csteocker: Also power of attorney as a use case for business wallet vocab. EU WeBuild consortium had 150 companies in large scale pilot. One challenge is distinction between corporates and sole traders - (companies vs individuals) 07:25:18 csteocker: Some debate needed about SD-JWT vs W3C VC - Carsten is pushing W3C and is here so that W3C VC can avoid being de-scoped - because EU is writing tech standards into legal text and we need to maintain VCDM presence. 07:25:38 https://w3id.org/ebwv 07:26:50 csteocker: presentBW vocab - four business registers participating (Finland, Germany, Netherlands, one more) 07:29:13 q+ 07:29:16 ... draft use cases show the way identifiers are linked. company, related natural persons, related entities. Can be 100's of related entities. THis is the key value prop for linked data - each linked entity is a linked ID. 07:29:18 q+ 07:29:22 ack phila 07:29:33 q+ in the linked web voc https://w3id.org/ebwv there is e.g. LEIs but not (party)glns or any other GS1 IDs. but you are considering those IDs? 07:29:54 wes-smith has joined #vcwg 07:30:28 oh this IRC is not for actual chat but rather using admin commands? 07:30:28 q+ exe 07:31:47 q- 07:31:56 I think phil is making my point anyway ;) 07:32:04 phila: realisation that carsten is talking about the entire company relationship vocabulary, not the business wallet metadata. THis is complicated and important - but are they only VC based? this needs to be relevant to this group. Not only that but needs to be perceived as valuable but groups outside VCWG that may perceive this as too locked-in 07:32:04 to VCWG. What is your end goal? 07:32:16 present+ exe 07:32:34 q+ 07:33:44 q+ 07:34:38 ack manu_ 07:34:38 csteocker: we want to build vocabularies that can be used for all these business use case for corporate records and identity. AML, KYC, Export complaince, etc etc - are a heap of use cases. Due diligence on company structure. 07:38:21 olvisgil has joined #vcwg 07:38:29 manu_: Often a concern about overlap of vocabulary owners - and whether this group is the place for this. Work going on in US - convenience store ecosystem - 150,000 stores with lots of KYB (KYC?) challenges. This would be super helpful to them. We dont have retailers here, but we do have people representing retail (eg GS1?). US chamber of 07:38:29 commerce - interested in KYB, and many others. We perhaps cant do the work to identity the detailed attributes but perhaps we can connect different communities together. 07:39:09 ack SteveC 07:39:31 ... Yes this is the value of working here - connecting with other groups. EU wants to work across border 07:40:14 scribe+ 07:40:42 s/commerce -/... commerce - 07:40:45 SteveC: Concern - any time you develop standards, you need representative stakeholders. Potential users of those. 07:40:59 s/to VCWG. What/... to VCWG. What 07:41:05 ... W3C is a tech SDO, it's not a place where you get banks, freight forwarders and retailers etc 07:41:15 q+ 07:41:31 q+ 07:41:32 ... I understand Carsten's desire but I'm not sure that W3C has the people to do it, 07:41:35 q+ Carolynn 07:42:03 q+ 07:42:08 steveC: You don't want to be tarnished with the anti-JSON-LD brush 07:42:11 ack ivan 07:42:11 ack ivan 07:42:37 waj has joined #vcwg 07:42:47 SteveC has joined #vcwg 07:42:59 Stevec: Along the same lines, what is it that we as a WG will have to standardize? Example of ontology, should that be standardized by W3C? These seem to be use cases put into a vocab? It could be published in a W3C space. Not a recommendation, fine line between the two. 07:43:02 q- 07:43:13 q+ 07:43:13 s/Stevec: Along/iherman: Along/ 07:43:27 carolynn has joined #vcwg 07:43:34 ack manu_ 07:43:34 ack manu_ 07:43:51 scribe+ 07:44:06 SteveC7 has joined #vcwg 07:44:28 scribe- 07:44:28 scribe- 07:45:30 q+ 07:46:08 q+ 07:46:47 ack carolynn 07:47:24 q+ 07:47:26 manu: My hope is that we can perform some kind of alignment mechanism between the business registry alignment. 07:49:13 q+ to talk about how DCAT works 07:49:17 carolynn: Agree with manu. We dont have a place like "world business vocabulary association" so maybe this is the place to do it. For the moment - we are knocking on the door of this group for it. For example - where is the "world education forum" - maybe one day it'll exist. For now we need a place that is a JSON-LD fanbase to host this stuff. 07:49:19 ack csteocker 07:50:29 q+ to speak to how vehicle vocabulary was developed at CA DMV. 07:51:37 ack pchampin 07:51:40 csteocker: This is the value - we are connecting people and that is the value. EUBW is starting to put a wallet group together. "Corporate Register Forum" exists but have no idea what a business wallet is.. Maybe bring them into this group. For the time being, is this group the intersection of business and technical organisations around the 07:51:40 world. Business value is huge - just germany, banking, enterprise KYC - Euro 3Bn. 07:52:01 s/world/... world/ 07:53:57 q? 07:54:07 +1 to Pierre-Antoine 07:54:57 ack ivan 07:55:00 pierreAntoine: Agree with what has been said - including Steve's concern about the right stakeholders. There are two sides to this - maybe a community group or interest group (especially because these are open to non-w3c members). But a WG brings formality. So what is a WG actually endorsing int he end? Could the WG work at "meta-level"? Who 07:55:00 would be responsible to figure out who checks the details? Odd for a WG to publish something without standing behind the content. Maybe this is a registry function. 07:55:13 +1 to a registry maintained by the group (without normative assertions about the entries in that registry) 07:55:53 Business Register Hierarchy Example 07:55:53 1. EU Memberstate (or European Country, which is not a EU Member) 07:55:53 2. European Business Register Association (EBRA) 07:55:53 3. Corporate Registers Forum (CRF), global association of corporate registries 07:55:54 EBRA: https://ebra.be/ 07:55:54 CRF: https://www.corporateregistersforum.org/ 07:56:12 ivan: this working group can/should prove that these vocabs can work in VC world. Consider the vocabs as "black boxes" then the question for this WG is "can I create a VC from this?". 07:57:22 ack SteveC7 07:57:23 ... eg some group was using external vocabs for VCs but demonstrated a misunderstanding of what goes where in VCDM - which can be a feedback loop for what should be added to VCDM in future. Registry might be the place for it 07:58:07 SteveC7: Just to clarify the question -- I don't think we're heading toward publishing these vocabularies as W3C Recommendations, possibly a place to put them in the registry -- if content of vocabulary needs standards-based consensus/authority, that is likely to happen somewhere else. 07:58:58 SteveC7: Different hosts that have membership structure -- what we're talking here is a framework for how to allow proposed vocabulary that's not group output as register for Linked Vocabs -- vocabulary itself has no authority, in standards sense -- that's not a bad thing, people look at registry and say that's something I can use 07:59:29 q+ 07:59:34 ack wip 07:59:36 ack SteveC 07:59:39 SteveC7: Vocabulary may or may not be in W3C namespace, could register all UNTP vocabs... is that your expectation, Caresten? That's two differnt things. 08:00:03 q+ to ask about terms not normatively defined elsewhere 08:00:21 q- later 08:00:24 ack manu_ 08:00:24 manu_, you wanted to speak to how vehicle vocabulary was developed at CA DMV. 08:00:28 +1 communication about what the registry means and does not mean will be important 08:00:33 q+ 08:00:40 wip: agree that W3C is not the place to design these vocabs. But the quesitons is what does it rteally mean to add somethign to a W3C registry? Does it imply endorsement? 08:02:09 Wip has joined #vcwg 08:02:55 manu: Example of California DMV. It's in prod now - but there was no logical home for the vocab and the logical owner (eg state govt) wants to do it but isnt ready / has no place for it. Meanwhile stuff happening in Europe. Question was "can W3C do this?" answer was no but state decided to do it. 08:03:43 s/manu/manu_ 08:03:52 q? 08:04:20 q+ 08:05:37 ack csteocker 08:05:41 ... these vocabularies often have no home - or many competing homes. So there's a common tendnancy to ask "can this go to W3C?". The tech is fundamentally decentralised anyway - and these vocabs, even if they start here, can move elsewhere when there is a viable home. Lets focus on making sure that the vocabs are VCDM compatible - and we could 08:05:41 have a test suite for that 08:06:11 WIP has joined #vcwg 08:06:16 q? 08:06:36 s/have a test/…have a test/ 08:06:56 q+ 08:07:11 csteocker: agree with manu. Many EU consortium (even with very large funding) build vocabls but have time limited funding / existence. So where to put the vocabs where they can endure? W3C perceived as neutral. Gives people confidence. 08:07:14 q- later 08:07:30 ack JoeAndrieu 08:07:30 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about terms not normatively defined elsewhere 08:07:33 q+ to suggest other guidance we can provide -- alignment on things like Organization, Address, Person, etc. 08:08:25 ack ivan 08:08:27 q+ 08:08:30 JoeAndrieu: Entry in registry is required - but even if not a W3C rec, it WILL be perceived as an endorsement. Because it's in the W3C register. 08:09:48 cstoecker has joined #VCWG 08:10:01 q+ 08:10:12 q+ to say maybe entry into test suite just requires WG review and a test suite. 08:10:22 ivan: important for those that are new - the DID registry is not a formal registry. a home grown thing. There is a registry track now which more clearly defines rules for registry entry. The AC must approve the registry framework, but not the content of the registry. risk is that people confuse approval of registry framework with aproval of 08:10:22 registry content. 08:10:23 ack pchampin 08:10:42 s/aproval/approval/ 08:11:00 s/registry content/…registry content/ 08:12:08 cstoecker has joined #VCWG 08:12:53 ack wes-smith 08:12:56 pchampin: To joe's point, a vocab doesnt need to be in the registry to be used in a VC but IF a vocab is in the registry then at least people know it's VC compatible. Like Manu's suggestion for a test suite. How can community add terms? maybe vocabs in register have contact points. Heard people say that, although W3C is not the ideal authority 08:12:56 for vocabs, many want W3C to take a role. Perhaps an interest group is the place for this - because non-w3c members can meet there 08:13:12 s/for vocabs/…for vocabs/ 08:13:18 q+ to propose we create the registry with intent to hand off running the registry to a new interest group 08:14:51 ack me 08:14:51 phila, you wanted to talk about how DCAT works 08:14:59 https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/images/dcat-all-attributes.svg 08:15:35 wes-smith has joined #vcwg 08:16:18 present+ olvis 08:16:50 SteveC7: Want to speak to DCAT, worked on by W3C over a long time -- many terms in W3C DCAT vocaulary are not defined at W3C, lots coming from Dublin Core, Provenance vocabulary, etc -- what should we do with most effect? How can we help move things forward in a way that allows us to show value of VCDM. If we go to expert org, they don't have LD vocabulary -- is it about persistent hosting? Persistent domain name. There are rules around w3.org 08:16:50 namespace. 08:17:18 SteveC has joined #vcwg 08:17:20 s/namespace/…namespace/ 08:17:39 SteveC7: CGs and IGs, different ways of doing it? Is it about reputation? Seen as endorsement? Is it about getting an ISO standard or through PAS -- or about good practice? 08:17:53 cstoecker: It's at WEBUILD 08:18:13 s/SteveC7: Want/Phila: Want/ 08:18:24 s/SteveC7: CGs/Phila: CGs/ 08:18:54 phila: Is challenge on persistence? What do we want to do to achieve what we want to achieve? I don't know the answer here, just asking questions. 08:18:56 q+ 08:18:59 q? 08:19:02 ack manu_ 08:19:02 manu_, you wanted to suggest other guidance we can provide -- alignment on things like Organization, Address, Person, etc. and to say maybe entry into test suite just requires WG 08:19:05 ... review and a test suite. 08:20:15 q+ to disagree with manu… 08:22:09 ack ivan 08:22:09 ivan, you wanted to disagree with manu… 08:22:18 zakim, close the queue 08:22:18 ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed 08:22:26 q? 08:22:28 manu_: Concretely, what can we do? Lets look at the vocabs and say "hey there are three of these already, why do you want somethign different?". We can act as a kind of linked data vocab expert group. +1 to Joe & Will, we dont want bad vocabs in the registry but also need to manage scalable review processes. Some sort of review / test suite - 08:22:28 can add value. Can we do it in a generalised way that can scale and does not impose heavy burden on this group. Rigorous technical testing can be a valuable entry point - even if we dont make value judgement on vocab content. 08:23:39 ack next 08:23:39 q+ 08:23:40 ivan: The vocabs must be a black-box from W3C VCWG perspective. No judgement on content. So we need clear discussions abotu how this registry is managed. We need to go down this line of formal registry management. 08:24:11 Amir has joined #vcwg 08:24:39 ack carolynn 08:24:58 carsten: not sure about registry. Wants to reach consensus on vocabulary content. 08:25:11 phila, there are caveat on what a REC can normatively reference, though 08:26:10 ack JoeAndrieu 08:26:10 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to propose we create the registry with intent to hand off running the registry to a new interest group 08:26:32 carolynn: we need to distinguish core vocabs from others. The registry can include any existing vocabs from EU etc - but this W3C registry can be used as a "core" vocabulary - that can be the basis for global extnesions. 08:26:50 Amir has joined #vcwg 08:27:04 ack SteveC 08:27:12 JoeAndrieu: VCWG is not the expert group and will not survive long term. Endorse carsten's suggestion to get started. 08:27:14 scribe+ 08:27:49 SteveC: I think a consensus is emerging here - this is the wrong place to have authoritative discussions about content. 08:28:13 ... There are cases where obvious authorities don't want to do something, and then down the line that perspective changes and they want to take it over. 08:28:24 ... We should be talking about the qualification criteria for entry into the registry. 08:28:41 ... Any vocabulary that isn't in the W3C namespace but is VCDM compliant should be allowed in the registry. 08:28:49 ... The interesting question is around the metadata and usage of the registry. 08:29:08 ... There could be interesting metrics surrounding volume of use of registry entries. 08:29:28 SteveC: Feels like a consensus emerging -- this is the wrong place to have authoritative discussions about content -- however, if an authority can't do work yet, but then we do it, and they want to take it over -- that's fine and might be useful. We should be talking about qualification criteria for entry into the register, should accommodate any vocabulary that is VCDM compliant. What is the register metadata and how do they use it? What metrics 08:29:28 should we establish about volume of use? Could we track use? Which ones are more popular, etc? That could be valuable. 08:29:53 s/should we/…should we/ 08:30:05 SteveC: My only nervous concern is "Core vocabulary" -- look for content, look for overlap -- is that our role or note. 08:31:09 Topic: Coffee 08:44:44 waj has joined #vcwg 08:48:43 wes-smith has joined #vcwg 08:49:07 SteveC has joined #vcwg 08:52:01 scribe+ 08:52:16 Topic: DPP Vocaublaries 08:52:19 Wip has joined #vcwg 08:52:50 wes-smith0 has joined #vcwg 08:52:57 scribe+ 08:52:59 carolynn: A brief intro on DPP - I want to know who is interested in this work. 08:53:04 Elaine has joined #vcwg 08:53:07 IvoLadenius has joined #vcwg 08:53:23 ... What's important to understand is that DPPs are being introduced as both mandatory and voluntary instruments 08:53:37 ... In Europe, this was introduced for sustainability and market surveillance reasons. 08:54:01 ... Market surveillance authority people don't understand what this technology can do for them, so we do education on what opportunities it provides. 08:54:14 waj has joined #vcwg 08:54:20 ... DPPs will be mandatory compliance tools on the European market, starting with batteries in 2027. 08:54:29 ... Iron and steel will be mandated in 2028. 08:54:40 ... Not only finished goods, but also intermediate products. Garments will be mandatory in 2029. 08:55:19 ... The European Product Act is a review of product regulations to harmonize work done by different people. 08:55:33 ... Term definitions and semantics must be unified across different legislation. 08:55:51 ... What compliance means for a DPP is not entirely understood. 08:56:09 ... There are different serialization options for DPP - JSON is mandatory, JSON-LD and XML are optional. 08:56:58 ... The need for something called a "semantic repository" was published recently - we are trying to convince regulators of explicit semantics. 08:57:25 ... Now people agree we need explicit semantics, whether via JSON-LD or some other form. 08:57:47 ... Industry has been introducing DPP for a while - the tire industry has DPP in production for every truck tire, for example. 08:57:51 Amir has joined #vcwg 08:58:01 ... Michelin in France introduced DPP for business reasons. 08:58:14 ... The tire industry agreed on a data model and semantics, and they designed an RFID DPP tire system. 08:58:31 ... There is a widely used industry resolver. 08:59:06 Amir has joined #vcwg 08:59:16 ... Industry is supportive of DPP. The United Nations transparency protocol is a different type of DPP with different objectives - to improve the traceability of ESG information. 08:59:32 ... Here, proof is not required that data is correct. 08:59:57 ... What SteveC has been providing with the UN is a layer of assurance that the data is correct. 09:00:23 ... The US has introduced a voluntary DPP for customs clearance. Vietnam has introduced a consumer protection DPP. China has several DPP initiatives for different product segments. 09:00:39 ... The EU correctly requires a unified DPP approach, while the Chinese approach is more chaotic. 09:00:52 ... The goal in China is to digitize the product economy. 09:01:20 present+ amir 09:01:43 Amir has joined #vcwg 09:01:47 ... In the EU both JSON and JSON-LD will be used for DPP. UN DPP is solely JSON-LD, and we are trying to convince China to use JSON-LD. 09:02:38 ... Some DPPs will be issued as VCs. UN DPPs MUST be issued as VCs. In the EU, the standards can be read differently w.r.t whether VCs are mandatory. 09:03:04 ... Vocabularies will be highly political things, with questions of sovereignty in different places. 09:03:12 q+ 09:03:21 ... We must accept and expect that there will be different vocabularies. 09:03:25 zakim, open the queue 09:03:25 ok, brent, the speaker queue is open 09:03:33 q+ Amir 09:03:52 ... Personally, I want to make it easy to reuse data across all DPP schemes while respecting the sovereignty of nations to create their own vocabularies. 09:04:08 ... DPPs can be linked - products can have subcomponents with their own DPPs. 09:04:18 ... Product related attestations and claims can also be linked. 09:05:33 ... There are two major challenges for the success of global DPPs: Companies may be forced to put different data carriers to conform with different regulations, and there could be conflicts of law yielding regulations shutting down DPPs as barriers to trade. 09:05:51 ack Amir 09:06:02 KevinDean has joined #vcwg 09:06:06 present+ 09:06:24 q+ 09:06:44 IvoLadenius has joined #vcwg 09:07:05 q+ to answer Amir if KevinDean isn't about to do it 09:07:17 ???: What about attacks where data carriers are swapped onto counterfeit goods? 09:07:40 s/???/Amir/ 09:07:46 carolynn: There are protections that directly link products to DPPs. There are multiple options to create trust on the authenticity of the product. 09:07:48 ack KevinDean 09:07:52 q- 09:08:09 ISO/IEC 15459 09:08:35 KevinDean: Depending on the regulator there could be different restrictions - for example, EU regulations could preclude usage of a DID. 09:08:57 carolynn: EU regulation does not preclude usage of a DID in this case. 09:08:58 -> https://ref.gs1.org/guidelines/digital-signatures/ GS1's guidance on how to use ISO/IEC 20248 which is the relevant standard for checking that a data carrier is attached to the thing it identifies 09:09:35 ... Harmonized standards are clear that many different identification schemes can be used. 09:09:48 ... Louis Vuitton has a blockchain based product identification system. 09:09:53 +1 to what Carolyn has said. (I have been part of the JTC24 process) 09:09:57 q+ 09:09:59 q- 09:10:24 ... Different sectors will use different identification schemes, and this should be a per-sector decision. 09:10:58 +1 09:12:04 carolynn: Among the things we might want to achieve in this group, one of the first things I am interested in understanding is why to use VCs for DPP. 09:12:18 My statement regarding ISO/IEC 15459 came from Annex III at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401781. 09:12:25 q+ 09:12:40 ... For SteveC it's clear, but in the EU context I don't think that this is what is going to happen, since for example when I make a request for a DPP I am querying the manufacturer's site and using HTTP to retrieve the data. 09:12:50 ... As I understand the harmonized standards, this data does not need to be signed. 09:13:19 ... In most cases for DPP, the issuer is the holder, but there could be multiple holders. 09:13:30 q+ 09:13:50 ... So why issue the DPP as a VC? What are the properties that the VC brings that are of use in such use cases? 09:14:12 q+ to note publishing DPP in a way that can be transferred can be useful (schema.org) -- for use in agentic commerce, for example. 09:14:22 ack SteveC 09:15:15 SteveC: For "Why VCs", it's not about revocability, it's about "who is the issuer"? This could be hosted anywhere - many providers will use a DPP service provider to host things, but this tells you nothing about who issued it. 09:15:41 ... When you have a register, issuer identity is linked by the register. 09:15:58 ... In a decentralized architecture, there can be many copies of a DPP. 09:16:18 cstoecker has joined #VCWG 09:16:28 ... There is a problem - the DID of the issuer is largely an opaque value - but there are efforts to solve this via business registration and Recognized Entities. 09:16:28 q+ 09:16:55 ... I envision a future where VCs can be used as transactional messages rather than authoritative credentials. 09:17:32 q+ 09:17:37 ... You must know who issued something in a way that is decoupled from storage. 09:18:17 q+ to talk about brands 09:18:27 scribe_ 09:18:29 scribe+ 09:18:30 ack wes-smith 09:19:18 wes-smith0: Steve spoke to valu ethat VCs bring, getting data over HTTPS over trusted channel -- are there not use cases today that require some sort of P2P transfer where you can't inherit trust via protocol? Give DPP to someone else? Move product to another product? Where HTTPS doesn't match domain? 09:19:22 q+ 09:20:00 wes-smith has joined #vcwg 09:20:20 q+ 09:20:56 q- 09:21:19 q+ 09:22:09 Amir has joined #vcwg 09:22:22 ack manu_ 09:22:22 manu_, you wanted to note publishing DPP in a way that can be transferred can be useful (schema.org) -- for use in agentic commerce, for example. 09:22:27 q+ to speak to one value add of VCs 09:23:36 q- 09:23:41 manu_: there is another benefit of VCs. As a creator of a product, why would you publish digitally signed information? One example, going back to the convenience retail sector in the US, is that it is difficult for small merchants to understand the latest that is going on with a product (identifier numbers, images...). These are things that it 09:23:41 would be nice for them to go out and fetch. 09:23:52 ... Also, the relationship between that product and other things (such as a G10). 09:24:17 s/G10/GTIN 09:25:08 ... Specifically, having core product descriptions as a bag of knowledge that an AI agent can work with is useful - relying on an agent to derive things can be inconsistent, and there can be regulatory requirements surrounding that. 09:25:21 waj has joined #vcwg 09:25:22 carolynn: You are talking about liability of publishing or using this data? 09:25:37 GTIN = Global Trade Item Number, the number you see printed beneath a typical barcode. It's a super-class of Universal product Code (USA) and European Article Number (EAN) seen elsewhere. GTIN is the bedrock of GS1. 09:26:16 manu_: Using - the consumer of the data must be able to say that they were acting on the fact that there was a confirmable certification about some aspect of the product (such as being allergen free). 09:26:33 i think what's not well understood is that almost every integrity verification use case involves a linked set of more than one credentials. The DID is the cryptographic glue that links credentials. You cant do this for example with an EU register issued VC identifying the economic operator if it is linked only to PDF or unsigned DPPs 09:27:49 ack cstoecker 09:28:32 cstoecker: To add to this - DPPs are coming to all products. For cybersecurity purposes and other purposes. VCs have main use cases including data provenance on the data plane, but also authn/authz on the control plane. 09:28:59 ... We should distinguish between data plane and control plane. 09:29:52 ... There is a pattern in supervisory bodies - how do we define trust. GenAI content is flooding mainstream information streams, leading to insurance fraud and similar - people are starting to see the value in provenance and authenticity. 09:30:24 q- 09:30:43 ... When it comes to ISO certificates relating to this, people are starting to put a trust infrastructure in place. 09:30:53 ... Europe is investing massively into trust infrastructure for conformance assessment bodies. 09:31:25 ... E2E verifiability of data is important. 09:32:00 carolynn: I think we need to distinguish between issuing claims and the DPP itself, which can contain links to claims to things. 09:32:03 ack waj 09:32:24 waj: We perceive this as an identity problem, which is why we see VCs as the solution. 09:32:57 Amir has joined #vcwg 09:32:59 ... VCs provide built in proof that products have rights to exist. 09:33:32 ack shigeya 09:33:39 ... Commerce sites often have many manufacturers related to some IP and it is hard to tell what has the right to exist. 09:34:14 shigeya: VCs have time-limited credential functionality built in. What is the use case for revocation? 09:34:18 ack wes-smith 09:34:18 wes-smith, you wanted to speak to one value add of VCs 09:35:16 q+ 09:36:04 q+ 09:36:32 qq+ to offer an answer to Carolynn 09:36:53 ack phila 09:36:53 phila, you wanted to react to wes-smith to offer an answer to Carolynn 09:37:13 ack cstoecker 09:37:21 q+ Green Transition directive 09:37:31 q+ 09:37:34 q+ michaelshea 09:37:34 cstoecker: The Pharma industry is interested in privacy related to lookup. 09:37:55 ack IvoLadenius 09:37:59 wes-smith1 has joined #vcwg 09:38:01 scribe+ 09:38:39 ack michaelshea 09:38:57 Amir has joined #vcwg 09:39:11 michaelshea: On the privacy issue, within the context of the EU, tracking access to DPP data, legally the economic operator is bound not to track consumer access. 09:39:20