Re: Credentials CG charter vote result

Hi Adam,

Cheers.  We've been doing some work in the area, indeed i'm doing some work
on it right now.

seeAlso: (not exhaustively)
- https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1437
- https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1525

and notably also: https://www.w3.org/Talks/2001/12-semweb-offices/all.htm

therein also; is the underlying assumption of a URI.

Tim.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 14:40 Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Tim,
>
> Thanks for sharing those documents. Based upon the first problem that you
> indicate in your discussion, pertaining to types of articles, you might be
> interested in:
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/verifiable-news/journalistic-schemas.html and
> https://schema.org/docs/news.html .
>
>
> Best regards,
> Adam
>
> *From:* Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* ‎Friday‎, ‎October‎ ‎20‎, ‎2017 ‎9‎:‎24‎ ‎PM
> *To:* Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Kim Hamilton Duffy
> <kim@learningmachine.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
>
> and FWIW - Verifiable News?  i mean...  really?
>
> don't get me wrong.  it's an area i've been working on for some time
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OPghC4ra6QLhaHhW8QvPJRMKGEXT7KaZtG_7s5-UQrw/edit#
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQQLPzTjZ8JuI1ZPy-xx5KOFffroV9qEJGx7LllD57i3aEp-CpcH9s1tblgAwT2hU2H5uLtYKGnT7s5/pub> -
> indeed you'll even see the section i put in there "Linked-Data,
> Ontologies and Verifiable Claims"
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OPghC4ra6QLhaHhW8QvPJRMKGEXT7KaZtG_7s5-UQrw/edit#heading=h.19e53f97toth>
>
>
> anyhow.  I just...  dunno.  Will get back to you.  Diversity is
> important...
>
> Tim.
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 12:05 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'll go through and do a proper review and respond more effectively;
>> noting,
>>
>> 1. The call schedule is currently for the early hours of my morning.  I
>> believe there were studies (can't find the link) that showed it doesn't
>> matter where people are in the world, scheduling global activities for
>> participation at 2am in the morning generally doesn't work for people.   I
>> guess, that's why the time of the call is not at that hour for you.   I
>> believe there were two issues about 2am calls, a. attendance and b. people
>> are grumpy / not at their best ;)
>>
>> I've been trying to do more advocacy and related work here locally; and
>> as such, had to make choices.  (believing also, the work was in trusted
>> hands ;) ).
>>
>> 2. The older materials weren't archived or available via some form of
>> version control; it was just all updated.   So, here am i looking for the
>> older references and the URIs, far from cool, said a very different story.
>>
>> 3. Someone else asked about commenting on the RWOT Spec and the
>> suggestion was that it would be better if only those who attended the RWoT
>> event comment.  :(
>>
>> 4. I then did a review, to see whether my other core assumptions about
>> the work on VCs (ie: verifiable claim documents) was proceeding as
>> expected; and saw a bunch of stuff that well..
>>
>> all very unexpected.
>>
>> 'identity' is too often over simplified and certainly also the subject of
>> actors seeking to usurp for commercial gains. to do otherwise is so very,
>> very complicated.  interestingly these issues do not appear to negatively
>> effect the 'identity' of legal persons ("persona ficta") anywhere near the
>> prevalence of problems for natural persons.
>>
>> 5. HTTP-SIGNATURES in relation to RDF documents was / is a beautifully
>> simple solution to a variety of problems. It provided something a WACd
>> WebID otherwise could not do.  Whilst there are still an array of issues
>> about how to ensure the integrity of that document (and its secured
>> references), the previous charter explicitly stated "identity credentials"
>> and "http signatures"; both are lost in the new version.
>>
>> I also see the works in OASIS (where some of it started from memory) and
>> some other dynamics which whilst i'm fully supportive of people doing good
>> things however they seek to;  felt it wasn't necessarily where i was going
>> - and the things i most cared about, seemed..
>>
>> well.  as a consequence of my flagging concerns, some changes have
>> already happened.  so i guess, some of my points must to some-degree have
>> been taken into consideration.
>>
>> i'll have another, better look into it.   I've been busy on related works
>> with some assumptions in-place, that i'll check are are ok.
>>
>> As noted; its my view that we need to ensure diversity, which is a very
>> important attribute of identity, depending on the definition used.
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 00:02 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/19/2017 05:23 PM, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote:
>>> > * <https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter-20140808/>
>>> >
>>> > As for the state of the previous work items, they seem to map to
>>> > more refined work items in progress now (e.g. DIDs) but I'm not
>>> > familiar with the history, so I'll let someone else weigh in.
>>>
>>> I think the general take away is that the group discussed our new
>>> charter for multiple months, debated it on the calls, sent minutes out
>>> related to the debate to the mailing list, commented on the charter via
>>> Google Docs, discussed it at various RWoT events... net net - lots of
>>> discussion and debate went into the current charter before it was
>>> accepted per the CG process.
>>>
>>
>> I think you flagged this at WWW2017 also.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The new charter we have now had consensus when it was passed at the time
>>> (and I suspect still has broad consensus).
>>>
>>
>> That info should be added to the new charter as it was for the last one.
>> (ideally, without unnecessarily deleting history).
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
>>>
>>