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

Re: Agenda: Verifiable Claims Teleconference - Tuesday, June 13th 2016

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:38:09 -0400
Message-ID: <57607941.3040102@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
CC: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 06/14/2016 11:03 AM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that the requirements modeling for verifiable
> claims is far from complete and could/should be a work product moving
> forward.

Agreed, but for W3C Process reasons, this work product:

1. Should not be a part of the Verifiable Claims Working Group work.
2. Should probably not be a part of the Web Payments IG.
3. Should probably be incubated in the Credentials Community Group.

> On the ID2020 slack channel, Manu mentioned it would be hard to
> modify the use cases moving forward and I think this would be
> suboptimal.

I didn't mean that. We can change the use cases whenever we want /in the
Credentials Community Group/. However, the Web Payments IG will be
reviewing a static copy of the use cases and making a decision based on
that. The broader W3C membership (if W3C management agrees to put this
up for a vote), will be reviewing a static copy of the use cases and
making a decision based on that.

Once the work is chartered, the scope is more or less locked down (so it
doesn't grow in size). That typically means no new use cases.

New use cases open W3C members to new sorts of patent commitments and
then we have to get the lawyers involved and the large companies start
getting skittish, etc.

> First, we know we haven't captured all of the relevant use cases. In 
> particular, use cases that would support UN SDG 16.9 as discussed at 
> ID2020.

Agreed.

> Second, we have yet to document fully the lifecycle and detailed use 
> cases as currently envisioned. There are some early steps in this 
> direction, but the work is far from complete.

We've captured enough to propose work in the area.

Keep in mind that the proposal for work is just in data model and
syntax... not protocol... the use cases and lifecycle for that isn't
done and won't be for a while.

> Third, requirements evolve. Whether it is accepting a new use case
> as relevant, learning more about possible technology, or settling
> into an architecture, the scope of what the tech is intended to
> resolve is guaranteed to change over time.

Agreed.

> For what it's worth, I would be willing and interested in
> contributing to or leading that effort.

+1, would love to have you lead this effort!

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern
http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2016 21:38:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:29 UTC