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

Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2015-08-04

From: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:26:20 -0400
Message-Id: <1438705580681.0.26605@zoe>
To: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Dave Longley for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:

http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-08-04/

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 2015-08-04

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2015Aug/0006.html
Topics:
  1. Recruiting
  2. Glossary Document
  3. Vision document
Action Items:
  1. Manu to reach out to Arnaud and James Snell about 
    Credentials and Conexa.
Organizer:
  Manu Sporny
Scribe:
  Dave Longley
Present:
  Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Nate Otto, Richard Varn, Matt Stone, 
  Eric Korb, Gregg Kellogg, David I. Lehn, Brian Sletten, John 
  Tibbetts, Rob Trainer, Andrew Rosen
Audio:
  http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-08-04/audio.ogg

Dave Longley is scribing.

Topic: Recruiting

Manu Sporny:  We'll likely be having similar calls for the next 
  month as we get these documents into shape.
Manu Sporny:  We had a couple of new organizations join thanks to 
  the emails Mark Leuba and John Tibbetts sent out. Thanks very 
  much for that, actually 8 or so more organizations due to that.
Manu Sporny:  I haven't had a chance to update the recruiting 
  document yet.
Manu Sporny:  Maybe by mid this week, Eric, we might want to send 
  another ping around to give people a last chance to say they want 
  to participate.
Manu Sporny:  I'm trying to get in touch with the CEO of Dublin 
  Core to get them onboard. I note that we still don't have many 
  healthcare companies on here so we want to note that with our 
  contacts.
Nate Otto:  I reached out to IBM, they are already a W3C member, 
  but their team working on credentials is very interested in this 
  work and hopefully they'll circulate this around.
Manu Sporny:  Are you speaking with Arnaud Lehore (sp)?
Nate Otto:  No, we've got another high level contact.
Manu Sporny:  We've got people in the Linked Data space 
  interested and so that's good that we've got multiple contacts.
Richard Varn:  If someone is talking to IBM is that they own 
  Kenexa which is training and HR stuff and they'll be very 
  interested in that.
Manu Sporny:  Do you have any contacts there?
Richard Varn:  No, I just know they are interested in this kind 
  of stuff.

ACTION: Manu to reach out to Arnaud and James Snell about 
  Credentials and Conexa.

Matt Stone:  I know we're having a discussion with IBM right now 
  about some badging stuff, maybe I can also find out who we're 
  talking with over there and make some in roads.
Manu Sporny:  I'll try and send out an email after this call 
  linking all the IBM contacts we know.
Manu Sporny:  I'll send out an email to the effect of "we need a 
  central contact for this"
Eric Korb:  I had a conversation last week with Acclaim, and 
  they're working on us with IMS Global, and ... I had a 
  conversation with Peter Jansow from IMS yesterday and he's 
  participating in that project. They said they'll participate in 
  standards groups where they plan to incorporate it into their 
  product. I presume that eventually they'll have to be looking at 
  the standard [bad audio for me]. My sense is that they are a 
  maybe with a capital M. Peter Jansow is the contact there, from 
  Acclaim.
Nate Otto: I only saw two links -- are there 4 ready for internal 
  viewing now?

Topic: Glossary Document

Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/glossary/
Manu Sporny:  Based on the hard work that Eric did on an internal 
  document around glossary, I've taken almost all of those 
  definitions, the ones that pertain to this CG, and updated the 
  ReSpec version.
Manu Sporny:  If you look in the terminology section, scroll 
  about 50% of the way down the link in IRC, you'll see the latest 
  and greatest terminology.
Manu Sporny:  This is the terminology I've heard used in the 
  group and Eric has documented, so not much should be surprising. 
  I added a few things. I stripped out authorization.io because 
  it's a specific service and glossaries don't generally discuss 
  those. Matt Stone, I know we've got this discussion about earner 
  vs. recipient and we should at some point work through that. If 
  we add earner to the glossary or if we change recipient to 
  earner, etc.
Gregg Kellogg:  I noticed we updated the Vision document and 
  there's a missing link to "requestor" which has been removed?
Manu Sporny:  Yeah, I think we call them "credential consumer" 
  now. So it should be replaced with that.
Gregg Kellogg:  Ok, I'll take care of that.
Nate Otto: (Earner vs. recipient): I suggest adding a note to the 
  recipient definition that says the recipient is sometimes called 
  the earner.
Manu Sporny:  We don't have to review the glossary on the call 
  today, just a heads up that I think it's aligned with what the 
  group thinks. If you have a spare second please read through it 
  and send review feedback to the mailing list. If you disagree 
  with the text please say "This is what the text says today and 
  this is what I think it should be changed to"
Manu Sporny:  Nate, that's great feedback, please send it to the 
  mailing list so the editors don't lose track of it.
Gregg Kellogg:  If you can create an issue on the website that 
  makes sure it gets tracked.
Gregg Kellogg:  A good idea is to transfer things that come in 
  into github issues.
Nate Otto: On credential consumer vs requestor: requestor is an 
  awkward term a little bit, but it is more specific than consumer, 
  because consumers can either be pushed credentials or can pull 
  (request) them.
Eric Korb: 
  https://github.com/mozilla/openbadges-specification/blob/master/Assertion/latest.md
Nate Otto: The link Eric shared is an old version of the Open 
  Badges specification. Latest version at https://openbadgespec.org
Eric Korb:  When I first built this I used a lot of the 
  "Assertion" link. We're trying to draw parallels, does it make 
  sense to link back to that spec to create synonymous 
  representations?
Eric Korb:  I don't know if we have one on every item but we have 
  a lot of them. There are sometimes things that are duplicated. 
  The context stands alone, but on top of that we have a vernacular 
  with overlap. I think the context needs to be a whole different 
  treatment from what we're doing with this glossary.
Nate Otto: I'll take an action to review this glossary.
Manu Sporny:  I think that's the right approach, the context is 
  far more low-level. There are more terms in there (glossary).
Nate Otto: Good work so far, all.
Manu Sporny: 
  http://opencreds.org/specs/source/glossary/#cross-references
Manu Sporny:  To answer the question, "What do we do with 
  synonyms, etc?" ... the way it should work is we take a glossary 
  term and we cross reference it to "assertion" in the OBI spec.
Manu Sporny:  That makes it clear that when we say "claim" we 
  mean "assertion". I don't know if that's quite true today for 
  that example, but that's how things line up.
Manu Sporny:  That's how we do it with other standards bodies 
  etc.
Manu Sporny:  With cross references.
Gregg Kellogg:  There's actually a mechanism specifically 
  referring to external definitions and that's the place to do it. 
  We'll also need an ontology, a prescribed vocabulary for mark up. 
  The context becomes derived from the ontology. Glossary - 
  ontology - context. I have some tools that I've created to manage 
  all of these things in a spreadsheet and emit all the appropriate 
  documents. And when I'm ready we can port those over for our 
  purposes.
Manu Sporny:  Yes, thank you Gregg. We'll definitely need a 
  vocabulary. We've pieced some of that together today with the 
  demo.
Nate Otto: On the glossary topic, here's a sentence that I wrote 
  to show the difference between a few different terms that are 
  often confused in the Open Badges space:
Nate Otto: "An issuer organization decides to start a badge 
  program, so its staff members design a badge system to go with 
  the program’s content delivery and assessment practices. Then 
  they run badge software to issue badges to recipients. "
Manu Sporny:  I think there's an open badges vocab ... it's kind 
  of been an amalgam of a bunch of different vocabs.
Eric Korb:  This is for Matt Stone. I looked at the Acclaim API 
  documentation and I noticed that you guys have some specific 
  terms I haven't seen before. I was wondering if you could take a 
  look [bad audio].
Eric Korb:  I'll send the link over, in the API documentation on 
  Acclaim, I saw some documentation I hadn't seen before, I saw the 
  term "guarantor" and I was wondering if we should include that in 
  the glossary.
Matt Stone:  Yeah, sure.

Topic: Vision document

Matt Stone:  It's "grantor" not "guarantor".
Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/vision/
Manu Sporny: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y92W2FjGKb-ECrdXqtPk-nPzfGZ1FVGIVrtex9A437E/edit
Gregg Kellogg: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/vision/
Manu Sporny:  I went through all of the Web Payment specific 
  things and looked at the goals that we have in our executive 
  summary and tried to elaborate on those. That combined with 
  working on these blog posts has really helped refine, I think, 
  the statements in the vision document. If you look at section 
  3...
Manu Sporny: 
  http://opencreds.org/specs/source/vision/#desireable-properties-of-a-credentials-architecture
Manu Sporny:  We call them "desirable properties for a 
  credentials architecture"
Eric Korb: 
  https://www.youracclaim.com/docs/issuer_authorizations#get-grantors
Manu reads section 3.
Manu Sporny:  That section translates all of the goals we had 
  written down in our executive summary a few months ago; it puts 
  them into the vision doc in a pretty succinct way. Any questions 
  on the vision doc or where we are with it?
None
Manu Sporny:  The next step is review of that document and to 
  send the feedback to the mailing list/github tracker.
Gregg Kellogg:  If we remove the large terminology section that 
  would be good.
Manu Sporny:  Yeah, it should be smaller. I think you have to 
  specify an extra param to do that.
Gregg Kellogg:  Oh yeah, that's what it is.
Manu Sporny:  I don't know if roadmap, use cases, or capabilities 
  have been updated in the last week. Anything anyone wants to 
  mention on those?
Manu Sporny:  I think we can probably strike discussion of the 
  glossary and vision docs on calls after this one until we get 
  review feedback. There's no real reason to discuss them on calls 
  until then.
Eric Korb: @All I'm out next week.
Manu Sporny:  We do need review comments flowing in, so if we 
  don't see that coming in over the next week we'll ask people to 
  take actions to do it.
Manu Sporny:  Once we get roadmap and use cases into shape that's 
  really good news because that's effectively what an IG would have 
  done. At that point is becomes more difficult for people to 
  suggest we need to create an IG because the output of an IG is 
  those types of docs.
Manu Sporny:  I think we should have a complete set of docs for a 
  WG to pick up by the end of Sept/early Oct.
Manu Sporny:  I think that's it for the call today.
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2015 16:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:24 UTC