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

Re: Recruiting. Re: Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2015-07-28

From: Christoph Dorn <christoph@christophdorn.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:42:54 +0000
Message-Id: <201507291742.t6THgs4g002077@rs103.luxsci.com>
To: anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
Cc: msporny@digitalbazaar.com, public-credentials@w3.org

On July 29, 2015 09:28:50 am PDT, "Anders Rundgren" 
<anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> What's needed are "primitives", not standardized
> applications involving any number of variables.

I could not agree with you more. I was just watching this talk:

   https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/Keynote-Duality

Where Erik suggests that we as software developers should focus more on 
the mathematical composition of simple concepts as these underly all 
languages where he mentions that every language is essentially a 
decision to pick a set of side-effects that fall outside of the clean 
mathematical underpinning.

This is in line with my work which is focused on program composition 
from many small distributed components where I believe you must 
orchestrate API contract adhering units using pure-data, contractually 
intersecting multiple domain models to represent the system. From this 
virtual model which can embed the credentials concepts using 
mathematical composition I can derive implementations that implement 
the models in a domain-specific way.

Only if you stick to PRIMITIVES that can be mathematically scaled do 
you have a foundation that can accommodate complexity. If you make a 
trade-off at the primitive/low level or provide sugar where it is not 
needed you will only restrict what is possible and push your lack of 
understanding to the edge of the implementation where you will be stuck.

I personally believe any solution that is not primitives based will 
give way to a primitives based one in time.

Christoph


> On 2015-07-28 19:33, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
>> Thanks to Brian Sletten for scribing this week! The minutes
>> for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:
>>
>> http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-07-28/
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2015Jul/0022.html
>> Topics:
>>    1. Recruiting
>>    2. Glossary Document
>>    3. Vision Document
>> Organizer:
>>    Manu Sporny
>> Scribe:
>>    Brian Sletten
>> Present:
>>    Brian Sletten, Manu Sporny, Eric Korb, Nate Otto, Gregg Kellogg,
>>    Matt Stone, John Tibbetts, Rob Trainer, David I. Lehn
>> Audio:
>>    http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-07-28/audio.ogg
>>
>> 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
>>    pipeline.
>> 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
>>    interest.
>> 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
>>    technic
>> 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
>>    definitions.
>> Manu Sporny:  Would there be any disagreement going in that
>>    direction?
>> <Crickets>
>> Nate Otto: +1 Sounds fine.
>> Matt Stone:  Eric, I would like to work with you on that.
>> Gregg Kellogg:
>>
>> https://github.com/opencreds/website/blob/master/specs/source/common/terms.html
>> 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
>>    that?
>> 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:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y92W2FjGKb-ECrdXqtPk-nPzfGZ1FVGIVrtex9A437E/edit
>> 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:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y92W2FjGKb-ECrdXqtPk-nPzfGZ1FVGIVrtex9A437E/edit
>> Manu Sporny: Executive summary:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Nq543-Am1hQUIZ2hhzAFl8KexvIEBwDDc_f3Ikz1opQ/edit
>> 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
>>    document.
>> 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
>>    document.
>> 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
>>    yet.
>> Gregg Kellogg:  Notice that the status of the document is added
>>    automatically.
>> 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
>>    Summary.
>> 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
>>    credentials.
>> 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 Wednesday, 29 July 2015 17:43:37 UTC

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