W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2016

Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-12-20

From: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:18:50 -0500
Message-Id: <1482254330347.0.5922@zoe>
To: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Matt Stone for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Claims 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).

Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-12-20

  1. Introduction to Pari, from Intuit
  2. Agenda Review
  3. Verifiable Claims WG Vote
  4. Discussion on Github
  5. Intro to Github Pull Requests
  6. Use of WebIDL in the Spec
  Dan Burnett
  Matt Stone
  Dan Burnett, Matt Stone, Pari Lingampally, Manu Sporny, Richard 
  Varn, Shane McCarron, Nate Otto, Jonathan Holt, John Tibbetts, 
  Dave Longley, Nathan George, Derek Callaway, Gregg Kellogg, David 
  I. Lehn, Bill DeLorenzo, David Ezell, Joe Andrieu, Matthew Larson

Matt Stone is scribing.

Topic: Introduction to Pari, from Intuit

Pari Lingampally:  I'm an engineer from Intuit. We are currently 
  working on a project w/ blockchains and identity. mostly here to 
  listen and learn.

Topic: Agenda Review

Dan Burnett:  Any changes to the Agenda?
No changes requested.

Topic: Verifiable Claims WG Vote

Manu Sporny:  Above threshold and have some positive votes. need 
  some larger companies to weigh in,
Richard Varn: When does the vote close?
Manu Sporny: W3C Member-only vote link for Verifiable Claims: 
Manu Sporny:  Most of the responders are smaller companies, but 
  work has generated some new w3c members.
Manu Sporny:  Looks good so far
Manu Sporny:  Need to respond to MSFT and Mozilla on the AC Forum
Manu Sporny:  Of the 4 that initially pushed back, 2 have 
  declared they won't block.  working w/ the other 2

Topic: Discussion on Github

Manu Sporny: Github issue tracker for spec: 
Dan Burnett:  Chairs would like the group to have discussions on 
  GitHub and make sure time in our weekly calls is used for topics 
  that require live discussion or decision
Dan Burnett:  Review and comment on issues that are logged at 
Dan Burnett:  Will use call to discuss issues that seem to be 
Dan Burnett:  Will drive to have proposals to review in the call, 
  so we have a clear decision to debate.
Nate Otto: This GitHub repo looks good.
Manu Sporny:  Pari - this group is about to become a w3c member 
  group.  feel free to participate via issue tracker
Manu Sporny:  Would love to have Intuit's input and collaboration
Jonathan Holt: Yes, Intuit is a member
Jonathan Holt:  What's the process to consolidate and prioritize
Dan Burnett:  As w3c we must attempt to address every issue.  
  must be careful w/ consolidation so we don't miss any issues
Dan Burnett:  Prioritization is based on getting discussion.  
  editorial issue will start getting addressed naturally
Jonathan Holt:  Seems like several that overlap and need 
Dan Burnett:  We will be careful about combining issues as 
Pari Lingampally: Thanks for the link manu, I will forward this 
  to the appropriate people and make progress on our vote.Btw just 
  looked, Intuit is a W3C member.
Matt Stone:  We're adding a more coarse-grained prioritization. 
  We may add another tag called "requires discussion", to make sure 
  those items are discussed on these calls. [scribe assist by Manu 
Matt Stone:  We're not looking for ordinal prioritization, more 
  coarse grained stuff. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]

Topic: Intro to Github Pull Requests

Dan Burnett:  Do we need to have this discussion today?
Dan Burnett:  Anyone who would particularly like me to walk 
  through this process?
Dan Burnett: Slides on how to do Github Pull Requests - 
Manu Sporny:  Some may be shy?
Dan Burnett:  Anyone who doesn't want us to go through it
Dan Burnett:  We have several participants that aren't 
  developers.  we'll go quickly if there are no questions
Nate Otto: I understand pull requests in GitHub. We've 
  implemented this procedure for Open Badges and have a small 
  amount of participation via pull request. We've even had a couple 
  non-developers level up and learn how to use PRs.
Dan Burnett: Repository:  
Matt Stone:  Stop scribing the "how to use gitHub" presentation
Manu Sporny:  Maybe too deep.  go fast :)
Manu Sporny:  3 Ways to be heard - 1) fork/edit/PR  in gitHub or 
  2) comment on issues directly 3) send an email.
Manu Sporny:  Option 2 is the simplest and best if you don't wan 
  to be an editor
John Tibbetts:  Regarding issues v. pull requests.  I've been 
  using issues until have better understanding of the group 
  consensus?  if an issue become concrete, will it be bounced back 
  to " us" to make a PR?
Dan Burnett:  Depends...
Dave Longley: You can always submit a PR on your own and say it's 
  a proposal for people to take a look at
Dan Burnett:  If there's clear concrete agreement, chairs may ask 
  you to make a PR, if you don't know how or resist, chairs will 
  find a way
Dave Longley: It doesn't mean the group will accept it, it's a 
  conversation starter
Dan Burnett:  Chairs may ask editors to make a change and ask for 
  comments from the group

Topic: Use of WebIDL in the Spec

Dan Burnett: https://github.com/opencreds/vc-data-model/issues/4
Manu Sporny:  WebIDL is used in specifications.  VC datamodel is 
  syntax agnostic. we're trying to decide what syntax to put in the 
  core spec
Manu Sporny:  Consensus we'll include JSON, JSON-LD (probably),
Manu Sporny:  Do we need others? like XML, WebIDL, etc. or put 
  them in another document?
Dan Burnett:  Asks why this one to go to a separate doc?
Manu Sporny:  WebIDL will come in at some point - when it's 
  integrated into the browsers. in the meantime, it's an odd 
  expression to those who aren't browser vendors
Manu Sporny:  Include expressions that are more accessible and 
  common for these participants
Manu Sporny:  Move webIDL out until we come a real working group
Nathan George: +1 On separate document.  I agree with manu's 
  point that his is overly browser-specific, and we should address 
  it later if we can.
Jonathan Holt: Had to rejoin, got kicked off.
Dave Longley:  We've prohibited ourselves from doing browser 
  specification of this work
Derek Callaway: Occasionally some application servers will use 
  IDL for CORBA IOR (Inter-Object Request) brokers or Java RMI 
  (Remote Method Invocation) .. no doubt it's a bit obscure, but 
  not unheard of in enterprise-class software
Shane McCarron:  Also hard to express this in webIDL, since it's 
  a w3c recommendation, we should try, but we can do it in another 
Dan Burnett:  Generally agree w/ discussion.  goal: generally 
  define a datamodel, and show that it can be expressed in >1 
  manner. we do ourselves a disservice if we don't do it in more 
  than 1
John Tibbetts:  Disagree: we should do it one way and it should 
  be JSON-LD
Derek Callaway: You could write a WebIDL->YAML translator (or 
  whatever syntax description language you want)
John Tibbetts:  In the core specification - move the alternatives 
  to separate documents w/ many difference representations
Matt Stone: +1 JohnTib
Dave Longley: +1 To John's suggestion of a separate doc with many 
  different representations as examples
Dan Burnett:  Please continue the discussion in the issue on 
Shane McCarron: I think it would be worth our while to help fix 
  WebIDL so you can express things like these data structures
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2016 17:19:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:33 UTC