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

RE: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-11-15

From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:48:59 -0500
To: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'Web Payments IG'" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, "'Credentials CG'" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <093f01d23f68$8bc0e930$a342bb90$@gmail.com>
Thanks, sorry late regrets. 

This meeting is at the same rime as the weekly WCAG call, and I have tried to be in both at the same time and am failing miserably....:-)

​​​​​



* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog


-----Original Message-----
From: msporny@digitalbazaar.com [mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 12:14 PM
To: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>; Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-11-15

Thanks to Dave Longley for scribing this week! The minutes for this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:

http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-11-15/

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 2016-11-15

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2016Nov/0012.html
Topics:
  1. W3C AB Feedback
  2. Specific Use Cases
  3. Age Verification Use Case
  4. Spec Issues
Action Items:
  1. Manu to migrate specifications to independent repositories.
Organizer:
  Manu Sporny
Scribe:
  Dave Longley
Present:
  Dave Longley, Matt Stone, Manu Sporny, Shane McCarron, Phil Hunt,
  Phil Archer, Gregg Kellogg, Bob Burke, Richard Varn, David I. 
  Lehn, Les Chasen, Adam Migus
Audio:
  http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-11-15/audio.ogg

Dave Longley is scribing.
Matt Stone: We need to add the following item to the agenda
  today:  start process issues in the spec (from manu)

Topic: W3C AB Feedback

Matt Stone:  The link in the agenda that we just dropped in to
  this discussion... Manu you suggested we add this to the agenda
  in the last day or two. Could you give us a quick intro?
Manu Sporny: W3C AB Feedback: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2016Nov/0011.html
Manu Sporny:  Sure. The discussion (the AB feedback) ... just a
  precursor to this, this is W3C member-confidential, so we can't
  actually talk about the contents or what people said. We can only
  talk about what is in the public.
Manu Sporny:  The W3C advisory board, they are elected, there are
  10 on the board, 3 of them are Tantek (Mozilla), Chris Wilson
  (Google), Mike Champion (Microsoft). These three have raised
  concerns about the VC work publicly.
Manu Sporny: Email from Mike Champion of Microsoft: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Nov/0022.html
Shane McCarron: Huzzah!
Manu Sporny:  Mike Champion from MS sent an email in that
  basically said that ... it was good. He was convinced that the
  education industry use cases meet the requirements for
  effectively starting a working group. He said he's "personally" 
  persuaded, doesn't mean it's a MS position. That's good that we
  have met the REC track readiness criteria.
Manu Sporny: REC track readiness criteria: 
  https://www.w3.org/Guide/standards-track/
Manu Sporny:  He says we've met that for VC.
Manu Sporny:  MS could still formally object if someone else
  doesn't want the work to proceed. Mike is convinced from an
  education perspective, specifically, Matt Stone, Richard Varn,
  and Nate Otto said things that were convincing. Then he wants to
  hear from the retail space. We've raised this and we need to hear
  from Bob Burke, Jay, and we've heard from Gray Taylor from
  Conexxus but Mike didn't find that compelling. He wants to see
  the implementers, not in general, but the specific spec being put
  forward. And do they have the ability to put this into the
  market. That's where he's coming from.
Manu Sporny:  Those are the types of responses that Mike needs to
  hear to convince him.
Manu Sporny:  I think that's where we are right now. Matt over to
  you.
Matt Stone:  A followup question to that is ... I know we spawned
  out of the Web Payments IG as a need to solve issues in the
  payments space. And it turns out that another vertical may be
  more mature in the need (Education). So what? Maybe we validated
  that we need a standard for industries that are not payments. 
  What happens if we leave them behind and we don't satisfy his
  need for a use case in that space?
Shane McCarron: (I am not concerned; there are payments people
  who care; lots of them)
Manu Sporny:  This places the Web Payments IG in an awkward
  position, they voted unanimously to put the charter up for a vote
  at W3C in the first place. I would expect that we'd hear from the
  IG. If we don't, then payments get removed from the charter and
  that's that. It's mostly that that group didn't expect to be
  taken out of the charter.
Matt Stone:  Is that something that you and your relationship
  with the Web Payments members would drive?
Manu Sporny:  Yes.
Manu Sporny:  And Shane, I don't know if you want to say
  anything.
Shane McCarron:  I put it in IRC already, there are payments
  people who care and they'll speak up.
Manu Sporny:  We've requested space on the IG call next week to
  discuss this.
Manu Sporny:  The discussion seems to be around "Yes, but who has
  actually implemented this out in the field as REC track readiness
  criteria." What Chris, Tantek, Mike seem to be saying is that
  they need to see people who have implemented the spec as it
  stands right now in the wild and this is kind of a new thing at
  W3C and it's not an opinion that is shared by all W3C members. 
  The general tenor from them seems to be that standards should be
  discovered and not created, and even though we have organizations
  saying they've been implementing this stuff for a decade plus,
  and their response is "You haven't implemented this *specific
  thing* and how does it solve a problem you couldn't solve
  before?"
Phil Hunt:  I think you have all put in so much effort, I don't
  know why it's even a thing and the sooner we get this on the road
  the better, I'd like to stop arguing and get on with it. This
  thing with incubation I think you've proved it. I understand why
  creating standard before market is a bad idea, but this group is
  being asked to do things that have never been asked to do. I'm
  amazed that anyone of you are even bothering to show up at this
  point.
Shane McCarron: I *love* being the first one to break ground at
  the W3C. :/
Manu Sporny:  Thank you Phil, great to hear from W3C staff that
  you feel that the bar here is fantastically high. I think the
  reason the AB discussed this is because reps want to see
  something changed at W3C. They are concerned that W3C staff is
  spread too thin and they want to see thorough incubation before
  work started and the VC work was just coming to a head just as
  they feel that the way they fee labout changing W3C is also
  coming to a head. They have new criteria that they want to see
  become part of the W3C process. They are exercising that
  philosophy on use through their positions on the AB and as large
  W3C members.
Manu Sporny:  I don't think we're the first to break new ground,
  this is a new thing that they want to see happen and they are
  using us to push that discussion, is my view.
Shane McCarron: I also love being used. :P Manu Sporny:  But, with that happening, I think we have actually
  done the things they want us to do. For example, Chris Wilson has
  said there are no implementations, but there are and they are
  deployed (Digital Bazaar, ACDT, Pearson, ETS). There's clearly a
  miscommunication that's happened.
Manu Sporny:  They want to see a system they can use that uses
  this spec.
Phil Hunt:  I was looking at the use case document. The use case
  document is deliberately generic. I was asking whether ... Mike
  Champion, who seems to be softening which is nice, he was saying
  is there an ecosystem. And we say "Yes". And you say we took the
  specifics out to make a nice use case document. I think everyone
  in this group has put enough effort into this. I want to look at
  the charter and do some bits and bobs with it. I want to go to
  W3M and talk with them and they need to review it internally and
  I don't think there's any problem and I think it will go to the
  AC in the coming weeks. Unless I find anything else, I would be
  inclined to move the conversation and get on with what you want
  to do instead of answering the same question from the same people
  all the time.

Topic: Specific Use Cases

Matt Stone:  So, last week, specifically the use cases have a
  pendulum swing/yo-yo pattern. On one hand too specific and then
  too generic. We show one, they want to see the other one. So it
  seems.
Matt Stone: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sTlymbzQ2zQsgnWDaNBXTq3aZ77RD_Jp5u9p9DLAcfA/edit#
Matt Stone:  We started a very brief, pragmatic document, from
  healthcare, education, commerce, KYC. Here are the current use
  cases that are in practice today that are representative of the
  marketplace out in the wild where a standard would facilitate
  interop, privacy, and other goals we have. Can we shift gears
  about what we need to do, is that the last nail in the coffin so
  we can move onto issues in the spec.
Matt Stone:  Here's the document that I just put into IRC> Manu Sporny:  I think one of the things that ... when Phil sent
  us the email, can we get some documented use cases with real
  world data, and I think a number of us are just trying to get
  that data here. I know our organization has a bunch of VC that
  we're talking with various companies about and we're engaged in
  pilots. I know Pearson, Evernym, Open Badges, etc have this stuff
  and we can talk about it and show the friction points on what's
  out there.
Manu Sporny:  Once we document this stuff we'll link to it from
  the use cases ... is that what you'd find useful, Phil?
Phil Archer:  You already got a well written use cases document. 
  Given the work you've done here, I'd be inclined ... as a
  suggestion here, under each generic use cases, you could say
  "Real world situations where this applies" with one, ideally more
  cases. These are real world companies that are happy to be named
  and if we meet these use cases then we've solved these problems. 
  I would update the use case document with these real cases rather
  than trying to do anything new.
Matt Stone:  It seems like where we are then is, we have a group
  of us trying to collect real world examples, running right now in
  a parallel doc and the goal would be to bring them back into the
  official use case doc and either embed or refer to them.
Shane McCarron: Happy to update the use cases with other data!
Matt Stone:  I hear that right?
Phil Archer:  It's not part of the charter. This is the use case
  doc that you're working on for the working group. I'm pretty sure
  the charter is as it's going to be. This is simply to the
  acknowledge the discussion that's been going on and it can go out
  in the call to the AC for review.
Matt Stone:  Sure.
Manu Sporny:  I would propose a slightly different strategy; we
  would still gather the data and put it in the doc, but maybe have
  a different section with real world data. 30-40-50 people have
  reviewed the use cases document at this point but don't have the
  real world data in the document and maybe what we need in the
  document is a section that just talks about real world data. And
  we say "For example, here are some VC in the wild today. And we
  put an example of open badges, pearson/acclaim stuff, ETS
  examples, JohnTibbets IMSGlobal, we've got examples from DHS, we
  just put that in there with a bunch of claims and say this is
  what it looks like and say what's deployed, etc.
Manu Sporny:  Any thoughts on that approach?
Dave Longley: +1
Matt Stone: +1
Shane McCarron: It feels harmless... +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Shane McCarron: (Just so people can find the information) Matt Stone:  I think that's a reasonable way to represent this. 
  When I go through the use cases I don't want to page through a
  bunch of examples that don't apply to my industry. Right now I
  can read use cases and see how theey apply. This goes in the
  appendix.
Bob Burke:  With coupon media we see some applications and should
  we talk about what we want to do moving forward as well? We see
  applications for it, we just haven't done it yet.
Manu Sporny:  Yes, basically Mike Champion from MS needs to hear
  that from you and even just a mock up of what you want to do, he
  needs to hear it. Right now he's not hearing it and thinks you
  aren't there, when we know that you're here.
Manu Sporny:  I don't think we'd embed the examples directly in
  the document because they are very large, but we can link to
  them. We can store them in the directory. You wouldn't have to
  thumb through pages of content.
Matt Stone:  Ok.
Manu Sporny:  Phil, would that meet the requirements that you
  have, for links to real world data?
Gregg Kellogg: I can take no credit for the CSVW Use Cases.
Gregg Kellogg: https://www.w3.org/TR/csvw-ucr/ Phil Archer:  There are two things. Satisfying the demands from
  the AC and the AB. And getting the use cases document ready for
  publication as a WG in the new year. The CSV on the Web use case
  document is really good, it has real world data, nothing made up. 
  I would be inclined to say, yes, put them in the appendix,
  wherever. At this stage now, I think we're just trying to get
  agreement to go ahead with this. In the message that goes to the
  AC for review, "In response to comments, here's real world data
  augmenting the use case document showing how it works with the
  existing use cases, etc." Or something like that.
Phil Archer:  How it goes in tothe document is up to the editors.
Matt Stone:  If I think about timing and sequence, and a sense of
  urgency, this document I scanned through ... are you
  saying/recommending that we produce a deliverable along these
  lines on a short timeline in the next week or two, before this
  goes up for a vote, or what is the urgent item that we do in the
  next 10 days that moves the needle on this?
Phil Archer:  I believe in the emails we've gotten and the google
  doc I've just seen,  I need to do my bit, just been too busy. My
  job, now, is to get two things ... I've got to get W3M to agree
  that it goes to the AC, which I think they'll do, I'll say to
  them that this group has been put through the mill, unusual level
  of scrutiny, asked every single question asked, answered multiple
  times, and where people are asking for showing existing
  ecosystem, development before we do anything, I can point to docs
  that show this has been done and I can point these other docs and
  can point to real world data now. When it goes out for review, it
  will include some of that information. It's for me to document
  what you've already documented and put that forward to the AC. 
  I've read the discussions, I can see why they've been saying
  this. I know they've been asking the same question and getting
  answers. I've very confident that there will be a VCWG in the new
  year. And then, because of all the work you've done and you've
  already got your use case document and there's nothing new that
  you haven't already done.
Matt Stone:  That sounds pretty positive.
Manu Sporny:  One slight clarification, I do think we need to put
  that data in the use cases document and say "This is the data
  we're working with today. This is in systems today."
Phil Archer:  Sure, yeah.
Shane McCarron: I don't mind adding some information to the use
  cases.  Should it be in an appendix?
Phil Archer:  I have a workshop in two weeks time which I'm
  hoping leads to a new working group and if we have to do go
  through this every time there is a new WG ... I will reserve
  passing judgment now. The WG I want to start next year would not
  pass all these tests.
Phil Archer:  I wonder whether ... age verification and the UK
  passing a law for age verification to be in place for anyone
  selling age-restricted products/services.
Matt Stone:  We have in the commerce side, claims that relate to
  over 21 and the US example is buying alcohol.

Topic: Age Verification Use Case

Matt Stone:  We don't necessarily call this out in education
  explicitly, but in education and professional licensure,
  legislative acts are the defining bar that run that drive our
  systems. One of the examples I pulled together is verifying nurse
  aid license in SC, USA. It's not just a UK commerce restriction. 
  Many examples require a verified claim before an individual can
  take a job or practice their craft.
Phil Archer:  The political question comes in, at the moment,
  there are a number of ideas put forward for how you might do
  that. Most are ill-informed or wacko, and for various reasons
  should not be touched. My political fear is that, come the day
  that W3C has a REC for doing VC. Then the legislators will say
  "Now you can, therefore it is mandated that you must." In that
  case, the tech developed here has a whole extra layer on top of
  it and we have battles with ACLU. There's a whole load of
  politics that comes into that we have to mindful of. Asking
  whether this community has come across this as a political issue,
  has their been any flak about it, what will happen.
Phil Archer:  You are going to get it.
Richard Varn:  We've had a lot of discussions about it over the
  years and we're keenly aware of them. One of the reasons we're
  attracted to this is a toolset to help people make choices about
  how privacy is managed. In the very standards work we're doing,
  we're providing a response that the ACLU and other privacy
  advocates care about in the work. That doesn't mean that they
  won't misunderstand or misinterpret, that happens.
Richard Varn:  Privacy sensitive and privacy protecting methods
  are important and we're proposing them. Not sure what else we can
  do there.
Manu Sporny: Input from Gray Taylor at Connexxus: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Nov/0022.html
Manu Sporny:  Phil, I just dropped a link in ... if you scroll a
  page down. Gray Taylor is the executive director of Conexxus, all
  fuel and retail in the US. If you buy fuel in the US or buy from
  a convenience store, you deal with the tech standards they put
  out there. Their primary use case is around age verification. 
  It's for exactly what you said, it's for making sure a person is
  above a certain age to buy things like tobacco, alcohol, etc. 
  from a convenience store. This is a primary use case for this and
  they are looking for VC that can address that and we have it in
  our use cases. That's on the desire side, they desire VC to
  address that use case.
Manu Sporny: Privacy Considerations: 
  http://opencreds.org/specs/source/claims-data-model/#privacy-considerations
Phil Archer: 
  https://medium.com/@alecmuffett/a-sequence-of-spankingly-bad-ideas-483cecf4ba89#.o3sf9m2rc
  Bad ideas for age verification
Manu Sporny:  What we also have is ... at a recent workshop
  calling Rebooting Web of Trust. A number of us got together and
  hashed out all of hte initial privacy considerations when it
  comes to VC. I know that Wendy at W3C is really concerned about
  privacy here and there are a number of EU mandates that are
  really important to take into consideration when talking about
  privacy, orgs that don't provide a certain level of privacy can
  be fined, very seriously. To attempt to address that we have a
  fairly good, high-level privacy consideration section. We have 15
  items there, many not filled out that were discussions as section
  headers in the spec right now and we expect all of those things
  to filled out over the lifetime of the WG. You asked a general
  question: "Are you thinking about privacy?" And the short answer
  is "Absolutely".
Manu Sporny:  There are many things to discuss about what's out
  there.
Phil Archer:  The digital economy bill going through the UK
  parliament right now requires age verification. There's a
  requirement that they must do it ... and there are various ideas
  that are well intentioned but wrong, others who want to make a
  quick buck on proprietary systems, etc. If you're perfectly well
  aware of all this that's great, I assumed you would be. Lots of
  various legal concerns. As you clearly well know, this will bite
  you and you sound prepared which is terrific, thank you.
Matt Stone:  One note on that, to this group, and to the W3C at
  large, it drives us to be careful about overselling our
  capability or deliverable that's in this charter. Our plan is to
  make a data model to represent this content. What you're
  describing is a full end to end solution with protocols, etc. We
  won't have that at this first phase.
Phil Archer:  Yes, that's good. I noticed tha.t Phil Archer:  The charter mentions that.
Matt Stone:  Any more on this topic?

Topic: Spec Issues

Matt Stone:  Last remaining item on the agenda is to work through
  issues on the spec.
Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/claims-data-model/
Manu Sporny:  The claims data model spec has lived here^ Manu Sporny:  All of the specs were on opencreds.org a name we
  started with and moved away from.
Manu Sporny:  W3C has a new process where it manages all this
  stuff on github. The things between now and the formation of the
  WG, one of us will get to it, we need to get this spec into its
  own github repo, and then start adding issues, document the
  issues associated with that github repo. Typically every spec
  gets its own repo, use cases, its own repo, data model spec its
  own repo, etc. then start logging issues. The chairs and editors
  should look at the issues and prioritize them in a way that meets
  the goals of the WG. Rinse and repeat. There will be specs in
  github repos, issues logged against them. Most of the discussions
  happen on the github tracker these days instead of the mailing
  list. There's a process that W3C, we're seeing used more and more
  at WGs.
Manu Sporny:  So, I guess the first question is, are there any
  objections to working in that way?
Gregg Kellogg:  So, I think we had this discussion a while ago
  and we did resolve to use multiple repos. I'm still hung up on
  how to deal with shared assets. If you have terms in common, etc.
Gregg Kellogg:  Having multiple use cases just seem to challenge
  that. In the CSVW case, there was a CSVW org where we could
  collect everything, sometimes issues span multiple specs and we
  could organize there. Being able to tag issues across all the
  different specs they might touch. If we go into multiple repos
  I'm concerned we'll lose cross linking and resource sharing.
Manu Sporny:  Just to note how we address this in the Web
  Payments IG...has an IG repo, where general issues are raised
  that affect all the specs. Just a holding spot for issues that
  bridge a number of different specs. We also have spec-specific
  issue trackers that are just for issues for a very specific spec. 
  Having those different issue trackers seems to be ok, people are
  ok with that. The other thing you raised is a technical question,
  how do you refer to a shared glossary. We publish everything to
  github pages and then you cross link to all the specs and pull in
  terminology from a common repo, etc. We did that with WPIG. Each
  spec pulls that terminology in thanks to a number of extensions
  that Shane did. There's a pattern we can follow that works in the
  WPIG.
Matt Stone: Thanks phila
Shane McCarron:  Pretty close to same pattern in ARIA work. 
  There's some magic in JS to automatically resolve interdocument
  refs, and it's a solved problem. It's not solved well, but well
  enough.
Matt Stone:  So it seems that we're resolved to put the spec in
  its own repo according to manu's suggestion?
Gregg Kellogg:  I'm sure it would work. There are different ways
  to do it, I just didn't understand all those technical things,
  I'm familiar with the mechanisms you've used to resolve these
  things, sort of just a clarification I was looking for, I don't
  have an issue with going in that direction.
Matt Stone: Dan is in korea, but voluteered Manu Sporny:  I can take an action to split the spec out, whoever
  does it has to know the history, so it should be me.
Matt Stone:  Next week is Thanksgiving holiday in the US, we had
  decided not to meet, so two weeks from now. Would you let this
  group know when you have that work completed and two weeks from
  now Dan Burnett is up to chair and he'll use existing issues as a
  source for the agenda for the next meeting.

ACTION: Manu to migrate specifications to independent
  repositories.

Manu Sporny:  Will do.
Matt Stone:  Anymore business for the day?
None. Adjourned.
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2016 17:49:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:32 UTC