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

Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2015-07-28

From: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:33:25 -0400
Message-Id: <1438104805657.0.29464@zoe>
To: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Brian Sletten for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:


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 2015-07-28

  1. Recruiting
  2. Glossary Document
  3. Vision Document
  Manu Sporny
  Brian Sletten
  Brian Sletten, Manu Sporny, Eric Korb, Nate Otto, Gregg Kellogg, 
  Matt Stone, John Tibbetts, Rob Trainer, David I. Lehn

Brian Sletten is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  On the agenda, running down the recruiting effort 
  and updates on recruiting and the documentation assignments. We 
  are hoping that the editors and authors of these documents are 
  making progress incrementally. If we go a week and don't make 
  progress, we'll want to know why and try to fix it.

Topic: Recruiting

Manu Sporny:  We do have some good updates on recruiting.
Manu Sporny:  The good news here is that we have a number of new 
  folks that responded to the recruiting drive. Eric Korb sent out 
  a number of emails last week and the week before and we 29 
  affirmatives now which is good.
Manu Sporny:  That's a strong feedback. That includes people we 
  haven't really been working on. We have another 30 in the 
Manu Sporny:  W3C is now kicking off internal discussions because 
  we got the numbers above 25. Two staff contacts are pushing this 
  heavily inside of W3C. Discussions about whether this should be 
  handled at TPAC.
Manu Sporny:  We are hitting some friction from the Security 
  folks. They are concerned about people being tracked across 
  websites (ignoring email as it is currently used). We are going 
  to have to be prepared to deal with this and show them that we do 
  care about security and that people are already being tracked.
Manu Sporny:  As of last week we have a number of new folks. 
  Badge Alliance. Nate has verified they will be joining. We have 
  Citrix. DQ Systems (John Foley is an ex-JP Morgan Chase 
  individual). We have a yes from ETS. We have a yes from Pearson. 
  Indiana University [several others] including Verisys. Eric and 
  John are recruiting some other folks.
Manu Sporny:  We need a big fish for W3C. A big new member. They 
  would like to see a new multi-billion dollar organization join 
  specifically because of this work.
Manu Sporny:  Eric, any updates on recruiting?
Eric Korb:  None other than what you've covered. People are 
  giving me feedback about voting. Apparently a lot of them didn't 
  get the original email. I don't know if I can find a billion 
  dollar company, but if someone like Parchment comes on board, 
  that would be good.
Manu Sporny:  That would be difficult to ignore. When I say a 
  billion I really mean "hundred million".
Eric Korb:  I can get a non-profit.
Manu Sporny:  They don't really count as they come in at $8,000 a 
  year. The official stance is the size doesn't matter but it is 
  helpful to bring in large members that pay larger fees and deploy 
  things at larger scale.
Manu Sporny:  The large companies that are already members, but 
  if ETS and Pearson both went to the W3C and said, "This is 
  incredibly important to us, why are you dragging your feet on 
  this?" they should listen to you.
Manu Sporny:  We're in a much better position than we were a 
  month and a half ago. There are people in the Web Payments group 
  that are pushing back on fintech for the poor that requires a 
  credentialing component which is useful as a pushback to the 
  people who thwarted the credentials.
Nate Otto:  Concentric Sky and some others from the badging world 
  are low-budget and new fees are a concern.
Nate Otto:  Would it be helpful to have people who were concerned 
  about the finances fill out the form?
Eric Korb:  Yeah, there's no financial commitment to expressing 
Manu Sporny:  Yeah, "We're interested but are concerned about the 
  money" is something we can take back to the W3C.

Topic: Glossary Document

Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/glossary/
Manu Sporny:  Let's move on to Glossary.
Manu Sporny:  Eric, you raised the point that we have a number of 
  glossary terms that are old.
Manu Sporny:  Gregg took what we had and moved it over. I think 
  Eric you've been working on one too and it would be great to move 
  that over.
Eric Korb:  As we've been talking to people about this at a 
  commercial level, we've been trying to use terms that everyone 
  can understand. When I point them to the glossary document, there 
  is some confusion. We're trying to differentiate between 
  conversational (e.g. issuer) and what is more formally part of 
  the spec technically. Those are the kinds of things we are trying 
  to differentiate.
Eric Korb:  Whereas the term 'context' is an actual class in the 
  spec as part of JSON-LD. Those are the kinds of clarifications I 
  am trying to make.
Eric Korb:  It's gotten difficult to separate so I agree with 
  Manu that we should combine them again.
Gregg Kellogg:  We might want to split this section into a couple 
  of parts. If we say "issuer" in a spec that the term is 
  highlighted and linked to show that when we use the same term 
  everywhere we mean the same thing. Respec has a feature that we 
  leverage for this glossary to include aliases and linking them to 
  term definitions. We want to use those but perhaps break those 
  into normative and informative terms.
Matt Stone:  This one term itself is easy to conflate from a 
  technology perspective and conversational perspective. There are 
  probably a dozen other terms that we struggle with internally. I 
  think it probably bears some discussion on these topics to put a 
  mark on what these terms mean when we use them.
Manu Sporny:  Agreed.
Manu Sporny:  We've gone through this exercise in the Web 
  Payments work. There are multiple players and standards 
  organizations with different terms. It's been a pain getting 
  everyone on the same page. We did learn that it was important not 
  to split the terms up. There is a clear understanding of what the 
  terms mean if there is one glossary with a set of normative 
  terms. When we talk about things in an informative document or a 
Manu Sporny:  What Gregg has done is create a programmatic 
  glossary that we can link into all of our documents. If we use a 
  term, the glossary will include that term and definition. We are 
  set up to include the glossary in all of the documents. We just 
  need to go in and hammer out all of the terminology.
Manu Sporny:  I suggest Eric finishes up his first pass on the 
  glossary and then we move the more general terms into the 
  Credentials CG glossary. Then we can bikeshed all of the 
Manu Sporny:  Would there be any disagreement going in that 
Nate Otto: +1 Sounds fine.
Matt Stone:  Eric, I would like to work with you on that.
Gregg Kellogg: 
Eric Korb:  Sure, we can collaborate and then we'll get it into 
  the ReSpec format.
Manu Sporny:  Eric, you and Matt work on that in the next few 
  days then ping us.
Gregg Kellogg:  Yeah, I can help with that. Let me know if there 
  are more questions about the terms that are there. We can add the 
  new terms and remove the old terms as they are replaced.
Manu Sporny:  Thanks, Gregg. Eric, do you think you'll be able to 
  done with the pass on that document by the end of the week.
Eric Korb:  I will try to get it done before the next meeting.

Topic: Vision Document

Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/vision/
Manu Sporny:  Eric, last week you said you wanted to spend some 
  time talking about the vision document. Do you still want to do 
Eric Korb:  I think it needs the same amount of treatment as we 
  just did with the glossary. We should probably set up another 
  call to have a conversation and let people dive in and edit it.
Manu Sporny: Google Doc for vision: 
Eric Korb:  I am not sure if it is in the minutes who wanted to 
  contribute to that. I'll set up another meeting so we can all 
  make edits.
Manu Sporny:  I don't think we've made progress on the other 
  documents in the last week. I think we can take the time to talk 
  about the vision document.
Manu Sporny:  Matt, feel free to hack away at the document.
Eric Korb: 
Manu Sporny: Executive summary: 
Eric Korb:  I have Gregg, Manu, and Matt collaborating on this.
Manu Sporny:  If you look at the goal section of the Executive 
  Summary, I think those can be transferred over to the vision 
Eric Korb: We should likely be in "suggesting" mode.
Manu Sporny:  In the Web Payments group, we had a large vision 
  document that ended up sounding like the Web. Rather than 
  reiterate that stuff, we said, "We believe the system should be 
  built on web principles, scaling, accessible, etc." That allowed 
  us to condense a large portion of the document down into one 
  section. We could then elaborate more on the things that were 
  specific to what we were discussing.
Manu Sporny:  We can talk about the verifiability of a 
  credential, privacy, how extensible is it.....etc. Those are the 
  kinds of things we might like to elaborate on in the vision 
Manu Sporny:  Do we want to take the goals in the Executive 
  Summary and move them into the vision document? Would that be a 
  good first draft?
Eric Korb:  I hear what you are saying and I think we do need to 
  do a bit of a merge. I would like to know which elements are 
  critical, required, what can we throw out just because they were 
  in the Web Payments group.... what are the things that are 
  required? Does this supplant the Executive Summary going forward?
Manu Sporny:  I don't think it supplants the Executive Summary 
Gregg Kellogg:  Notice that the status of the document is added 
Eric Korb: Could participants please introduce who is speaking 
  until we recognize your voice?
Scribe note: Long back and forth discussion with specific 
  reference to document sections.
Matt Stone:  I think we should move the definitions of 
  credentials and what they are to frame what they mean in our 
  context should exist in the vision document.
Manu Sporny:  Someone asked if the Executive Summary goes away. I 
  guess in this case, the vision document is an elaboration of the 
  Executive Summary.
Manu Sporny:  Maybe we move the Executive Summary content into 
  the vision document to elaborate it, but the Executive Summary 
  stays as a one page summary. The vision document should stay 
  relatively small still, but it is an elaboration on the Executive 
Eric Korb:  That is fine. My point I wanted to make about 
  credentials. The list of all the types of credentials could be 
  infinite. We don't want too many adjectives in front.
John Tibbetts:  I think it is a good idea somewhere and early to 
  innumerate a whole bunch of credentials once. And then lump them 
  into a super term elsewhere.
Eric Korb:  I've been using the term "digital credential" because 
  they are different that what we would use in paper.
Eric Korb:  What we put in the W3C document, should be generic.
Manu Sporny:  Eric, that is an important distinction, Eric. We 
  don't want people thinking we are doing anything with paper 
Manu Sporny:  There is a lifecycle involving the issuing, storage 
  and management of a credential and then its consumption. The last 
  bit that we've played around with is revocation which can go into 
  the management bucket. Reflecting that in the vision document: we 
  expect this to be world-wide, anyone can store and manage 
  credentials and they can be passed on and revoked. We want to 
  make sure that there as many issuers, storage engines, 
Manu Sporny:  Then we can talk about the need for standards for 
  the interoperability between the components, requesting 
  credentials, etc.
John Tibbetts:  That was a great summary.
Manu Sporny:  I will volunteer at making a pass and covert each 
  of those into credentials-speak and then remove the confusion.
Scribe note: Manu goes on a distillation of the individual 
  sections which you should listen to the audio to revisit.
Manu Sporny:  Anything else on the Vision Document? Eric, Matt 
  and I are going to hack on it in the next week? Is that the plan?
Eric Korb:  Perhaps the glossary needs to get done first, but 
  we'll just do our best.
Manu Sporny:  We had the same iterative approach in the Web 
  Payments group.
John Tibbetts: BTW if we enumerate regulatory constraints include 
  FERPA for education folks
Brendan Benshoof: +1 FERPA
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 17:33:49 UTC

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