Re: Credentials CG charter vote result

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 16:51 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Kim,
>
> apologies if the meta was difficult.
>
> Spec needs to support URIs.
>

oh.

Given http-signatures[1] is now in a different group[2]. perhaps it doesn't
matter.

(guess it looks a bit like a backdoor listing, technically - i'm not sure
it matters.)

Tim.

[1]  https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/
[2] https://www.w3.org/community/digital-verification/


> more later.
>
> Tim.H.
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 16:05 Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Tim,
>> Could you be precise about your concerns? I value directness.
>>
>> Best,
>> Kim
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:53 PM Timothy Holborn <
>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy
>> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
>> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
>> 400 Main Street Building E19-732, Cambridge, MA 02139
>>
>> kim@learningmachine.com | kimhd@mit.edu
>> 425-652-0150 | LearningMachine.com
>>
>