W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2015

Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2015-04-07

From: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:45:07 -0400
Message-Id: <1428425107587.0.11572@zoe>
To: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Mark Leuba for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:

http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-04-07/

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Credentials Community Group Telecon Minutes for 2015-04-07

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2015Apr/0004.html
Topics:
  1. Executive Summary
  2. Use Cases
  3. Credentials/Badges Vocabulary Update
Organizer:
  Manu Sporny
Scribe:
  Mark Leuba
Present:
  Mark Leuba, Manu Sporny, elf Pavlik, Brent Shambaugh, Dave 
  Longley, Adrian Hope-Bailie, Victoriano Giralt, Nate Otto, Kerri 
  Lemoie, Sunny Lee, David I. Lehn
Audio:
  http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-04-07/audio.ogg

Mark Leuba is scribing.
Recap of executive summary, bulk of call will be discussing Use 
  Cases proposal and Vocabulary discussion from yesterday.  
  Anything else for agenda?
No additional items.

Topic: Executive Summary

Manu Sporny: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Nq543-Am1hQUIZ2hhzAFl8KexvIEBwDDc_f3Ikz1opQ/edit
Manu Sporny:  Exec summary document - not much changed since last 
  invitation from Manu.  Added a statement on Accessibility, and is 
  required by W3C.    We will start circulating very soon.
Manu Sporny:  Any concerns about the Executive Summary or the 
  proposal to circulate it among W3C memberships.
elf Pavlik: When we will have  [LINK TO SUPPORT FORM] available?
Brent Shambaugh:  What about Accessibility?  
Manu Sporny:  The statement says the standard must take 
  Accessibility into account, not to prevent the use of the 
  technology by people with disabilities.
Brent Shambaugh:  Is that related to Linked Data?  
Manu Sporny:  For LD, it would indicate that brail support must 
  be available.    This comes out in the Use Cases, for example to 
  demonstrate how a person that cannot see can receive and have 
  access to that credential. For example, we couldn't say use of 
  Biometric Fingerprints is required.  
Brent Shambaugh:  Ok,
Dave Longley:  I have been adding comments about useabilty to 
  describe suitiability.
Manu Sporny:  Wondering if the word suitability is known, Dave: i 
  tried to elaborate;  Brent: Where would gym membership or a 
  marriage license fit?  Dave: Under workplace, or civil society or 
  identity.
Manu Sporny:  We won't cover everything in the summary, just a 
  range of the types of things.
Manu Sporny:  Other comments on Exec summary?  Elf: When will we 
  have a support form for people to support the work?
Manu Sporny:  We need to create links to the support form, the 
  charter, and the use cases.  When they are done we will circulate 
  Exec Summary.
Manu Sporny:  The use cases will take a couple more weeks to get 
  done. But we can circulate this with orgs we have a good 
  relationship with to give them a heads up.
Manu Sporny:  Elf, we need to fill out the support links before 
  broad distribution.  Manu: I will take the links.
elf Pavlik: Thanks Manu!
Adrian Hope-Bailie:  Would we consider the use cases for 
  ownership as important in this work?  As opposed to asserting a 
  skill or age.  e.g. I own a page, .  Manu: You have raised an 
  important point.  We have not been explicit,
Adrian Hope-Bailie:  Generally people express ownership by 
  holding a key but agents may hold the key on their behalf.  Even 
  traditional bank accounts or self trading...Manu: would you add?  
   Adrian: Yes.

Topic: Use Cases

Manu Sporny:  Next topic - Use cases.  Last document needed to 
  "get into shape".
Manu Sporny: Current use cases document is here: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f2U97L5vrFHOActRFVSRDg3koTeA6_Oy3SCGmkimziM/edit
Manu Sporny: Proposed micro-use case based approach: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GySrTXAYpwa4vDPsGE3BMA42FwIAqAyLGigKuKUTGks/edit
Manu Sporny:  Sunny, Carie and Nate have been working on this, 
  reorganizing.  Thank you.  Last week I proposed a micro-use case 
  approach.  It's the same as being used by Web Payments user 
  group.  It made our progress faster.
elf Pavlik: In "Credential or just a Statement?" I try to 
  exercise view that we can pretty much make Credential out of any 
  set of LD statements, so as long as one can create linked data 
  for ownership, marriage, you name it it can also become a 
  Credential.  
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2015Mar/0007.html
Manu Sporny:  Here is a link to the example.  Please look at the 
  Table of Contents for the proposed document structure.  Starts 
  with high level introduction, what is a credential, why is it 
  important, how are they used...
Victoriano Giralt: I wanted to say, that I have perused the 
  micro-usecases documents and really like the approach
Manu Sporny:  Description of the problem, etc.  Next is a high 
  level introduction to the Live Cycle of a credential, the 
  phased-based approach. What are the phases of what you do.  With 
  credentials it did not work out very well. More straightforward 
  with web payments.
Nate Otto: Sorry all, just joining now. Yeah, I think we noticed 
  with the previous approach that the "phases" overlapped more with 
  credentials than they did with something like commerce.
Manu Sporny:  Instead of phase-base approach, I tried a LIfe 
  Cycle, the issuing/earning aspect of it.  e.g. we have these 
  credentials you can earn, then you can earn and the issuer issues 
  it.  The next stage is when an organizations asks for the 
  credential, the Consumption part.
Manu Sporny:  This is my attempt to demonstrate how we can talk 
  about credentials based on a life cycle, with predefined steps 
  and substeps.
Manu Sporny:  E.g. first step an issuer advertises,  recipient 
  earns, issuer issues, organization consumes... let me stop there. 
   Is this the right way to look at this?  Any comments?
Nate Otto: How can we convey when steps might be skipped in this 
  format?
Dave Longley:  Quick comment, looking at the payments document, 
  there is only one thing to model, the payment transaction.  I 
  think we have the same with credentials but we have multiple 
  boxes, each step breaks down into multiple phases.  There are 
  more things to be modeled.
Dave Longley:  If you look at each step as we do with the payment 
  transaction, we have more steps to document.
Manu Sporny:  Elf asked a question (above).  Dave: we will cover 
  that.  Victoriano: I like the approach.  Nate: how to convey when 
  steps can be skipped?  Manu:  There is a section "in the real 
  world", in those scenarios we specifically write the step and say 
  "this step is skipped".
Brent Shambaugh:  From the UC's it looks like you are trying to 
  standardize the protocol.  Manu: in general, W3C focuses on 
  prototcols and data formats.  Lower level protocols, the W3C will 
  move the protocol to the IETF.  Your observation is right.  We 
  are talking about protocol and data formats.
Brent Shambaugh:  Do you have an ontology?  Manu: that is what 
  Nate, Sunny, Kerri are working on.   Yes, we are looking at Open 
  Badges and Credentials ontology.  Brent: the use cases are how 
  you use that in a way.
Kerri Lemoie: Breaking it down in this format is nice and clear. 
  Slight concern about calling referencing it as lifecycle. Not 
  sure of a replacement term....
Manu Sporny:  The UC's should be generic, not talk about specific 
  technologies.  More what world we want to see.  The WG's develop 
  the technologies to meet the requirements.
elf Pavlik: We have vocab topic at the end of today's agenda, I 
  hope dlongley and NateOtto can also summarize our yesterday call
Manu Sporny:  Any other questions?  Kerri: concerns about the 
  term Life Cycle, Manu: Agree, if we can think of a better term.   
  Dave: Agree, it indicates credentials may expire.  I think we can 
  use the phase terminology but we need a word for what sits above 
  phases.
Dave Longley:  We have multiple questions, how to you issue, how 
  do you consume,  we just need a high level term above phases.
Manu Sporny:  Agreed.  Any other thoughts?  Nate: In the  
  Consuming phase I left a comment, not all credential sharing will 
  share in that work.  Maybe we can write a dedicated phase for 
  special cases.  or we can substitute steps as opposed to leaving 
  one out.
Manu Sporny:  The structure still needs work, this is a first 
  pass.  I agree with you Nate.  Especially the consuming case, 
  middle of p3.  Starts with credential consumer request.  Maybe we 
  skip the first step and recipient pushes the credential.
Sunny Lee: Sort of feels like we're doing use cases all over 
  again from scratch...
Manu Sporny:  We can handle this different ways.  In the payment 
  group we tried this but there are 30-40 different flows, we 
  couild approach this, 10-15 flows at least.  I think the right 
  approach is phases/steps with some steps that can be skipped.  We 
  won't know without trying more.  Nate agree?
Nate Otto:  I think it is a matter of massaging the format, 
  providing alternate  flows.
Nate Otto:  Did you look at the old document?  Manu: Yes, I 
  copy/pasted and the portions will just go into different places.  
  Sunny are you on audio? :
Sunny Lee:  Unintelligible
Sunny Lee: That's correct, i'm definitely open to the micro use 
  case approach though
Sunny Lee: Just throwing caution out there
Manu Sporny:  I heard it feels like we doing UC all over again 
  from scratch, that we are trying to fit into payments model 
  rather than something that fits the Credentials work.  Manu: 
  Sunny is that right?  Sunny: Yes
Manu Sporny:  Very valid points Sunny.  This is an experimental 
  document, not decided by the group.   To address some of your 
  concerns, we will use 80% of content from previous document.   I 
  don't think we will lose the hard work from the original 
  document.
Manu Sporny:  If we do lose content and it is redundant, that is 
  a good thing.  Or if we lose things we need that will be bad and 
  indicate we don't have the structure right yet.  If we can save 
  the work from the other document we should be in pretty good 
  shape.
Sunny Lee: Sounds good.
Nate Otto: Manu, can you summarize why you think this format is 
  better in one sentence? Is it designed to appeal to a particular 
  type of user at the W3C, for instance?
Manu Sporny:  Other thoughts?  Should we stay with the current UC 
  document?  Dave: I am in favor of reorganizing, makes it easier 
  to use and organize.  We can call it a Credential Framework/with 
  Operations and Phases.
Manu Sporny:  I see you have made edits to the documents.  Dave: 
  yes to show how we can model it.
Victoriano Giralt: +1 To the doc and operations and phases, I do 
  not know why but framework does string a chord with me
Nate Otto: +1 To "operations", which feels like it's at the right 
  scale to have 4-5 steps.
Manu Sporny:  We stopped at the high level intro.  Sunny I hope 
  this speaks to your concerns.  If you look at p1, a simple 
  example of a credential.  The idea is to start with intro, basic 
  framework, a simple example.  e.g. recipient receives and stores. 
  Organization consumes, to ground how these phases work in the 
  real world. Just one example.  Then we talk about the framework 
  in detail, this is where the UC's come in.
Victoriano Giralt: May be stupid but it came to my mind: 
  "credential minting process" with operations and steps?
Manu Sporny: Example of framework detailed micro-use case: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GySrTXAYpwa4vDPsGE3BMA42FwIAqAyLGigKuKUTGks/edit#heading=h.1vcapgo841v6
Manu Sporny:  Look at the link in IRC.
Dave Longley: To me, "credential minting process" only seems to 
  cover the issuing of credentials, not their consumption (to go 
  with the analogy, minting a currency doesn't really include 
  actually using it to exchange for goods/serviecs)
Manu Sporny:  This is the first "micro use case", composed of 
  fairly simple, broad category, specify the motivation.  Look at 
  bottom of p4, where recipient earns credential.  Bottom of p6, 
  top of p5.  For example micro use case Testing.
Manu Sporny:  Example Sally takes a GRE.
Victoriano Giralt: Agreed, that's why I said "might be stupid"
Dave Longley: :)
Manu Sporny:  Easy for people to grasp.  Top of p5, you can earn 
  a credential by an action, .eg attended a conference, a real 
  world action.  At its elemental level, these micro uc's are 
  supposed to be very simple.
Manu Sporny:  Can be verbose as well, bottom of p5, a claims 
  micro-use case.  Issuer can make a veriety of claims against a 
  recipient, online course, driver's license, examples. But rest of 
  the format stays the same, p5 point out security implications to 
  verify who they are. Privacy implications, we must protect PII.
Manu Sporny:  This is an example of a verbose micro-use case. All 
  this text came from the current document.  My hope is all UC's 
  will migrate over.  Sunny, will that address your concern?
Sunny Lee:  Yes.   
Manu Sporny:  OK
Sunny Lee: Sounds good
Manu Sporny:  Only 7 minutes left.  Can we put this on hold 
  unless anyone disagrees.  We will try to move all content into 
  this experimental one to test it and we will discuss next week 
  and if all are ok we can move on..
elf Pavlik: +1
Victoriano Giralt: +1
Kerri Lemoie: +1
Manu Sporny:  Any last comments?  <None>.   Thank you Sunny, 
  Kerri and Nate for your efforts.

Topic: Credentials/Badges Vocabulary Update

Nate Otto: Sorry I missed the top of the call -- I've drafted up 
  a v1 badges context 
  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ottonomy/openbadges-specification/badges-context-separation/v1/context.json 
  that incorporates some existing terms in a legacy context that is 
  at the URL desired to be used for the badges context
Manu Sporny:  OK regarding the Vocabulary documents, Nate or Dave 
  can you update us?
Nate Otto: Go ahead, Dave
elf Pavlik: In "Credential or just a Statement?" I try to 
  exercise view that we can pretty much make Credential out of any 
  set of LD statements, so as long as one can create linked data 
  for ownership, marriage, you name it it can also become a 
  Credential.  
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2015Mar/0007.html
Nate Otto: Yes, but I reiterated in text.
Nate Otto: :)
Dave Longley:  Pasted in IRC comment from elf earlier.  elf had 
  modeled to confirm it would work well with Open Badges 2.0,   
  Credentials are digitally signed and suitable for some purpose.  
  Very generic, any domain specific areas can use their own 
  vocabular.
elf Pavlik: 
  https://gist.github.com/elf-pavlik/029917ccc535e889f693
Dave Longley:  Elf modeled it using the identity credentials 
  spec.  It modeled well, could be used in a hosted way or ...way.  
   Can add a signature later, add a revocation date and resign.
Nate Otto:  Quick question, re: signed linked data.  If something 
  is revoked and needs to be resigned, should the current version 
  be fetchable in addition to the old version.  Dave: you would 
  expect the new version to be what is retrieved.
Nate Otto: The draft context 
  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ottonomy/openbadges-specification/badges-context-separation/v1/context.json 
  will actually push off the legacy terms to a separate, linked, 
  clearly-marked legacy context, where humans can totally tell it's 
  legacy/deprecated, but it's equivalent to computers.
Nate Otto:  We are thinking about the very best way to model 
  achievement data into the linked data form, aligned with the 
  credentials spec.  Dave: elf has shown the importance of 
  decentralized approach, not a rigid set of rules.
Nate Otto: Dave is talking about the gist elf-pavlik posted: 
  https://gist.github.com/elf-pavlik/029917ccc535e889f693 Modeling 
  a signed University Degree (a defined achievement)
Dave Longley:  For example a University degree, signed and reused 
  as a credential. General idea, keep modeled data true to it's 
  original form but keep it general enough to mark up as a 
  credential.
elf Pavlik: Please also look at revisions where i start from 
  EXAMPLE5 from current vocabulary draft 
  https://gist.github.com/elf-pavlik/029917ccc535e889f693/revisions
Manu Sporny:  Do we need to change any direction in this group?  
  Dave: we think the model we are using can work well.
Nate Otto:  One action is to confirm our current approach to the 
  Context File.  Dave: we need to find a time to test on 
  ...systems, my recommendation is to use the other URL and then 
  switch it back once we confirmed it works.
elf Pavlik: Oh, we can use rawgit.com to server context directly 
  from github repos e.g. http://tinyurl.com/ndzsvuv
Nate Otto:  More than a week?  Dave: Yes, Manu: ASU-GSV this 
  week.  Nate: Keep me updated.  Manu: we don't want to kill and 
  important demo, but will try ASAP.
Manu Sporny:  Nate was your read same as Dave's.  Nate: we 
  confirmed the current approach will work well.  The Badges spec 
  for example, not all will follow the credentials spec.  I think 
  it will work just fine to have the recipient be a different email 
  address then the organization's IRI.
Dave Longley:  One other thing, elf will throw together some 
  temporary context in GIT to figure out what we want to do.
Sunny Lee: Thanks!
elf Pavlik: NateOtto, we can look together tomorrow/thursday how 
  much of terms from OpenBadges2.0 you can already reuse in 1.1
Kerri Lemoie: Thank you!
Manu Sporny:  Anything else we need to discuss before the next 
  call?  We will try to make progress on the experimental UC 
  document and try to test out with Nate asap.
Manu Sporny:  Meeting ended.  Talk next Tuesday.
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 16:45:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:23 UTC