W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2014

Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2014-11-11

From: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:08:20 -0500
Message-Id: <1415729300948.0.31343@zoe>
To: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Mark Leuba for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:

http://opencreds.org/minutes/2014-11-11/

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Credentials Community Group Telecon Minutes for 2014-11-11

Agenda:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2014Nov/0002.html
Topics:
  1. Review W3C TPAC Meeting
  2. Web Payments IG Meeting
  3. W3C TPAC Credentials Hallway Discussions
  4. Planning for next 2 months
Organizer:
  Manu Sporny
Scribe:
  Mark Leuba
Present:
  Mark Leuba, Manu Sporny, Sunny Lee, Mary Bold, Brian Sletten, 
  Victoriano Giralt, Nate Otto, Eric Korb, Evgeny Vinogradov, Rob 
  Trainer, David I. Lehn
Audio:
  http://opencreds.org/minutes/2014-11-11/audio.ogg

Mark Leuba is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  Reviewed agenda, the W3CTPAC meeting.  Went really 
  well.  Reviewing for those that could not attend.
Manu Sporny:  Review the TPAC Meeting, Discuss Priorities, 
  Learned a lot at the meeting.  A number of things will move 
  quickly.  A lot of groups interested.

Topic: Review W3C TPAC Meeting

Manu Sporny:  Any updates or changes to agenda? <none>
Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/minutes/2014-10-28/
Manu Sporny:  These are public minutes.  Gave parties a week for 
  corrections.  OK to share publicly now.
Sunny Lee: Sounds good
Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/minutes/2014-10-28/
Manu Sporny:  Everyone in Web Payments Interest Group were able 
  to learn more about the CG.  Turnout was great.  Normally 12-15 
  persons, had between 38-48.  Fantastic, a lot of interest.
Manu Sporny:  The Credentials Meeting had 15 participants, really 
  good turnout.  Many more could not be there.  Folks from Deutsch 
  Telekom, Verisign, Federal Reserve, Accreditrust, Target, Mozilla 
  (Briefly), W3C standards.
Manu Sporny:  Very engaged discussion.  Dialog went beyond agenda 
  but it was good.  Most resolved around Identity Proofing, how to 
  tie credentials to proofed-persons.  Went over high level use 
  cases.  Talked about identifier portability,  Efforts to avoid 
  vendor lock-in.  Spoke about data rights.
Manu Sporny:  Did not follow the agenda, because conversation as 
  going well, discussion was well-aligned.
Manu Sporny:  Details are in the minutes (link) above.
Mary Bold:  The participants were knowledgeable, needed no 
  instruction.
Mary Bold:  This allowed fast moving discussion.  Manu was very 
  clear and expert in his explanation to the participants.
Brian Sletten:  In addition, there was general consensus about 
  the scope, where it would apply.  More than I expected,  There 
  was a good sense that we are on the right track.
Manu Sporny:  Agreed, I was surprised there was not arguing about 
  minutia.
Manu Sporny:  Anything else about the CB face to face meeting?
Participants at W3C TPAC had nothing else general to add.

Topic: Web Payments IG Meeting

Manu Sporny:  Credentials CG was invited to present for one hour. 
   Went very well.  In the Web Payments IG meeting the credentials 
  were not discussed much but the work of the CG will be folded 
  back into the Web Payments group.
Manu Sporny:  We spoke about the broad group of interests, ETS, 
  Accreditrust.  Health Care and government as well.
Manu Sporny:  The Web Payments IG will discuss Credentials in a 
  serious way.  How can we make it productive?  We need a set of 
  deliverables to make that possible.

Topic: W3C TPAC Credentials Hallway Discussions

Manu Sporny:   Other discussions in the hallway that myself and 
  others had with W3C team around credentials.  The preferred track 
  has two specifications of interest, how to order JSON LD so it 
  can be signed.  Other, how to digitally sign JSON LD messagse so 
  it can be verified by the recipient.
Manu Sporny:  The Social Web working group has adopted JSON LD, 
  they want to do digital signatures, they are interested in the 
  work.  Web Annotations is also interested in these 
  specifications.  The Data Activity Group, is also very interested 
  in Graph Normalization and the other specification as well.
Manu Sporny:  This is a good thing, the Web Payments IG will not 
  have to do this, it can be offloaded to other groups.
Brian Sletten:  Is that indicative of support?  Is there a 
  process where we track the work products of the groups?
Manu Sporny:  If we want to take on the specification a group has 
  to adopt the work items.
Manu Sporny:  Better for existing group to adopt the 
  specification, to avoid having to start a new group.  This is 
  especially true for Graph Normalization work, which is highly 
  specialized.   We expect a micro-working group to be created.  
  The secure messaging spec may have the same process.
Manu Sporny:   Did that answer your question Brian?
Brian Sletten:  Yes, thanks.
Manu Sporny:  This is a firehose for the new members, any 
  questions or concerns?
No questions.

Topic: Planning for next 2 months

Manu Sporny:  How will the CG group coordinate so outcomes meet 
  our goals?
Manu Sporny:  We can do a number of things, a) focus on use cases 
  to hand to Web Payments IG, they had a use cases document that 
  looks like the CG use cases.  They have basically copied the CG's 
  use cases.  Uses cases are important for our work to transfer 
  into official work.
Manu Sporny:  We need to discuss the strategy of creating 
  official work.  Which technology stacks to push through?  JSON 
  LD, the JOSE stack?  Something we have not looked at yet?  We 
  need to get the right organizations involved working on those 
  stacks.
Manu Sporny:  We need to identify which organizations will 
  charter our work officially.
Manu Sporny:  We need 20, have 13 already.  Remainder should be 
  not difficult.
Manu Sporny:  How to coordinate with other groups fast but not 
  too fast to impact the work.  Also need to talk about Test 
  Coordination.
Manu Sporny:  Thoughts in addition?
Manu Sporny:  Would like to hear group's priorities.
Sunny Lee:  Can you elaborate on the level of conversation about 
  the test organization?
Manu Sporny:  I can't say at this time.  I was asked not to but 
  will shortly.
Sunny Lee:  There has been a lot of interest in Open Badges.  A 
  conference in DC in October, I was invited to speak.  I'm happy 
  these efforts are coming together.
Manu Sporny:  They seemed very interested in the general area.
Manu Sporny:  Mark have you had dialog with PESC?
Mark Leuba:  I haven't had a chance to talk w/ PESC yet. [scribe 
  assist by Manu Sporny]
Victoriano Giralt: Groningen Declaration Network 
  http://www.groningendeclaration.net/
Sunny Lee:  There is a parallel effort, Victoriano is the 
  technical mind behind the Groningen Organization above.
Victoriano Giralt:  We are seeking to get rid of paper 
  credentials in education at scale.
Victoriano Giralt: RS3G - http://www.rs3g.org/
Victoriano Giralt: Rome Student Systems and Standards Group
Manu Sporny: Digital Student Data Depositories
Victoriano Giralt:  We had a technical meeting with another group 
  RS3G Rome Student Systems and Standards Group, we also had 
  conversations in Rome about Open Badge.  We are very interested 
  in the education use cases.
Victoriano Giralt: CEN - https://www.cen.eu/Pages/default.aspx
Victoriano Giralt:  I have come to "Spy" :-) I am very 
  interested.  We need a technical means beyond current methods.
Victoriano Giralt:  We are looking for more open standards and I 
  am very interested here.  Someone from PESC was in Rome talking 
  about Open Badges.
Manu Sporny:  Welcome Victoriano, we are happy for you to join. 
  Everyone basically wants the same thing.  This CG is focused on 
  making sure the technology works, around the world.  Free to use, 
  not behind a pay wall.
Victoriano Giralt:  We are looking for ways to create open 
  standards.  I will offer to present our activities.  Sunny and 
  Manu are invited to our meeting. I want to run a technical track 
  in our upcoming meeting.
Manu Sporny:  I think your presentation would be helpful for this 
  group Victoriano.
Victoriano Giralt:  We have global reach in our group.
Manu Sporny: Learn more about Groningen Declaration here - 
  http://www.groningendeclaration.org/about-network
Manu Sporny:  The link above provides information on the 
  Groningen Declaration.
Manu Sporny:  Let us know best schedule.
Victoriano Giralt:  Will try for next week.
Manu Sporny:  Questions for Victoriano?
Manu Sporny: Credentials CG use cases: 
  http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/
Brian Sletten:  Have you looked at the Use Cases?
Manu Sporny:  We have yet to include the GD use cases in the CG 
  set.
Victoriano Giralt:  I will try to prepare some use cases.
Manu Sporny:  Any other items to focus on?
Nate Otto:  +1 For continuing the Normalization Spec and the 
  Digital Signatures.
Eric Korb:  A conversation with author of JSON LD.  We spoke 
  about validation.  There is a need for JSON LD version 2.0, to 
  include validation.
Manu Sporny:  Nate has been working on tying JSON schema to JSON 
  LD for Syntactic Validation.  Is the structure sound?  This is 
  not semantic (meaning) validation.
Nate Otto: Manu explained that right about how Open Badges are 
  using JSON-schema for syntactic validation of JSON-LD documents.
Manu Sporny:  A number of organzations are planning to use 
  syntactic validation.  A couple of approaches to best practices, 
  JSON LD Framing, SPARQL engines, other semantic web stuff.
Manu Sporny:  This is a work item we can look at.  I hesitate as 
  this is a lot of work, so many different ways to do it.
Manu Sporny:  People are still producing new ways to do it.
Eric Korb:  By using JSON Schema as a methodology, will that make 
  adoption more difficult?  Be a barrier to adoption?
Manu Sporny:  I don't think it will stop us from moving forward.  
  We can move forward without the syntactic validation but it's 
  important.  There should be tools to validate.  The Badge 
  Alliance has a tool for a couple of versions of the Badges.
Manu Sporny:  Would organizations be ok moving forward without 
  Syntactic validation?
Nate Otto:  We are making Syntactic Validation an optional 
  component.
Nate Otto:  Processors of badges can also use Syntactic 
  validation optionally.  If they are comfortable with semantic 
  validation.
Nate Otto:  We will use this approach for now but are open to 
  other approaches in the future.  I will provide a link to a 
  presentation we are making.
Sunny Lee: Info for the call today: 
  http://etherpad.badgealliance.org/ba-standard-nov11
Nate Otto: Slides about Open Badges 1.1 proposal: 
  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dWMU2gdnfjBPRJTCcCDOJrs0xSgCwNc-IOUdjq9gRmw/edit#slide=id.g42f044649_0120
Manu Sporny:  I cannot join the call.  Good thoughts and 
  opinions, the work Nate has done is along the same path other 
  companies and groups are doing.
Manu Sporny:  This is not an absolute requirements for version 
  1.0 of the spec.  The specs have a very long "half life".  A word 
  of caution, everyone has a different way of doing validation.  
  Best practices have not emerged.  We can however make a 
  recommendation.
Manu Sporny:   In the JSON LD vocabulary we can state a field for 
  validation to refer to a validation best practice as of 2014.  As 
  new and better validators emerge this can be updated without 
  breaking the standard.
Nate Otto:  Is it ok to have version context files?  That can be 
  updated to indicate which validation the version is "obeying".
Manu Sporny:  That's how a lot of companies are doing it.  You 
  can always add to the context.  You should never remove from the 
  context.
Manu Sporny:  There is an upgrade path, we want to do the minimal 
  amount of work to get an operating standard. What is the bare 
  minimum to lead to success for version 1.0?
Manu Sporny:  Any other thoughts on this subject?
Brian Sletten:  I second the initial proposed focus.
Manu Sporny: Here's our current spec stack: 
  http://opencreds.org/presentations/2014/tpac-wpig-ccg/images/technologyStack.svg
Nate Otto: Very few Open Badges in the real world are issued 
  signed with JWT
Manu Sporny:  There is our current spec stack.  That is the last 
  discussion we need to align the two technology stacks (with the 
  Badge Alliance).
Manu Sporny:   Is there any pushback to move off the JWT stack?
Nate Otto: There is very litte to no pushback
Nate Otto:  Sunny there are only a few implementations of the 
  JWT, correct?
Sunny Lee:  Yes, there are very very few.
Manu Sporny:  Because the tooling wasn't available or because it 
  wasn't needed?
Nate Otto: I think the tooling weighs heavily on individual 
  issuer's decisions not to use signed badges.
Sunny Lee:  I think both.  Security of signed badges was 
  desirable and the tooling implementation barriers were quite 
  high.
Manu Sporny:  So there will be little pushback if we changed the 
  digital signing mechanism?
Sunny Lee:  There will be a little because not many people 
  implemented it.
Manu Sporny:  This is one of the key things I am concerned about. 
   With this aligned, Badge Alliance and W3C CG will be aligned.
Nate Otto: Should we start the conversation in the Badge Alliance 
  now suggesting this change?
Manu Sporny:  Should we discuss next week?  Too soon?
Nate Otto: I think the people who have been paying attention have 
  seen the direction we're moving towards (JSON-LD, normalization, 
  that world of signatures)
Sunny Lee:  Let's put on agenda for next week.
Nate Otto: Some detail: The main difference cited in the use 
  cases document refers to what element of the credential is being 
  endorsed. The Open Badges endorsement supporters have been 
  focused on the "badge class" as recipient of endorsement, where 
  the use cases from the w3c would be focused on the "assertion" if 
  expressed in Open Badges terms. Open Badges endorsement, while 
  intellectually focused on the "badge class" so far, may also be 
  applied to the "assertion" with no other technical changes.
Manu Sporny: Thank you Nate - that really helps clarify that in 
  my mind. I agree w/ you now - not that different... you're just 
  signing different things. They're both valid use cases.
Nate Otto: Yeah, I don't know how the other non-openbadge 
  credentials used by this group will be structured (there probably 
  won't be the same 3-part division as with Open Badges), but there 
  may still be possibilities where endorsement of those credentials 
  function in different ways.
Manu Sporny:  We also need to align on "Endorsement" terminology. 
   The only two things left.
Nate Otto:  I will look at that but I don't think they are far 
  apart, the W3C is more technical but it boils down to the same 
  basic discussion.
Manu Sporny:  Any last words?
Manu Sporny:  If everyone can send thoughts on their specific 
  priorities (e.g. 1, 2, ...) to the mailing list that will help 
  move this discussion along.  We will then try to execute on 
  those.
Manu Sporny:  Thanks all, same time next week.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 18:08:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:46:54 UTC