Re: Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2015-08-04

Manu, just a brief note per the mention of Dublin Core in the recruiting
section. I am here as a participant and probably the closest thing to CEO
you'll find in DCMI. I believe that you've communicated with DCMI's AC Rep,
Tom Baker. I'm not the most qualified in DCMI to be here; but I'll have to
do until we arrang for someone with the qualifications/time/interest to
take my place. Bottom line, Dublin Core is here.

Stuart Sutton
DCMI Managing Director

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:26 AM, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Dave Longley for scribing this week! The minutes
> for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:
>
> http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-08-04/
>
> 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 2015-08-04
>
> Agenda:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2015Aug/0006.html
> Topics:
>   1. Recruiting
>   2. Glossary Document
>   3. Vision document
> Action Items:
>   1. Manu to reach out to Arnaud and James Snell about
>     Credentials and Conexa.
> Organizer:
>   Manu Sporny
> Scribe:
>   Dave Longley
> Present:
>   Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Nate Otto, Richard Varn, Matt Stone,
>   Eric Korb, Gregg Kellogg, David I. Lehn, Brian Sletten, John
>   Tibbetts, Rob Trainer, Andrew Rosen
> Audio:
>   http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-08-04/audio.ogg
>
> Dave Longley is scribing.
>
> Topic: Recruiting
>
> Manu Sporny:  We'll likely be having similar calls for the next
>   month as we get these documents into shape.
> Manu Sporny:  We had a couple of new organizations join thanks to
>   the emails Mark Leuba and John Tibbetts sent out. Thanks very
>   much for that, actually 8 or so more organizations due to that.
> Manu Sporny:  I haven't had a chance to update the recruiting
>   document yet.
> Manu Sporny:  Maybe by mid this week, Eric, we might want to send
>   another ping around to give people a last chance to say they want
>   to participate.
> Manu Sporny:  I'm trying to get in touch with the CEO of Dublin
>   Core to get them onboard. I note that we still don't have many
>   healthcare companies on here so we want to note that with our
>   contacts.
> Nate Otto:  I reached out to IBM, they are already a W3C member,
>   but their team working on credentials is very interested in this
>   work and hopefully they'll circulate this around.
> Manu Sporny:  Are you speaking with Arnaud Lehore (sp)?
> Nate Otto:  No, we've got another high level contact.
> Manu Sporny:  We've got people in the Linked Data space
>   interested and so that's good that we've got multiple contacts.
> Richard Varn:  If someone is talking to IBM is that they own
>   Kenexa which is training and HR stuff and they'll be very
>   interested in that.
> Manu Sporny:  Do you have any contacts there?
> Richard Varn:  No, I just know they are interested in this kind
>   of stuff.
>
> ACTION: Manu to reach out to Arnaud and James Snell about
>   Credentials and Conexa.
>
> Matt Stone:  I know we're having a discussion with IBM right now
>   about some badging stuff, maybe I can also find out who we're
>   talking with over there and make some in roads.
> Manu Sporny:  I'll try and send out an email after this call
>   linking all the IBM contacts we know.
> Manu Sporny:  I'll send out an email to the effect of "we need a
>   central contact for this"
> Eric Korb:  I had a conversation last week with Acclaim, and
>   they're working on us with IMS Global, and ... I had a
>   conversation with Peter Jansow from IMS yesterday and he's
>   participating in that project. They said they'll participate in
>   standards groups where they plan to incorporate it into their
>   product. I presume that eventually they'll have to be looking at
>   the standard [bad audio for me]. My sense is that they are a
>   maybe with a capital M. Peter Jansow is the contact there, from
>   Acclaim.
> Nate Otto: I only saw two links -- are there 4 ready for internal
>   viewing now?
>
> Topic: Glossary Document
>
> Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/glossary/
> Manu Sporny:  Based on the hard work that Eric did on an internal
>   document around glossary, I've taken almost all of those
>   definitions, the ones that pertain to this CG, and updated the
>   ReSpec version.
> Manu Sporny:  If you look in the terminology section, scroll
>   about 50% of the way down the link in IRC, you'll see the latest
>   and greatest terminology.
> Manu Sporny:  This is the terminology I've heard used in the
>   group and Eric has documented, so not much should be surprising.
>   I added a few things. I stripped out authorization.io because
>   it's a specific service and glossaries don't generally discuss
>   those. Matt Stone, I know we've got this discussion about earner
>   vs. recipient and we should at some point work through that. If
>   we add earner to the glossary or if we change recipient to
>   earner, etc.
> Gregg Kellogg:  I noticed we updated the Vision document and
>   there's a missing link to "requestor" which has been removed?
> Manu Sporny:  Yeah, I think we call them "credential consumer"
>   now. So it should be replaced with that.
> Gregg Kellogg:  Ok, I'll take care of that.
> Nate Otto: (Earner vs. recipient): I suggest adding a note to the
>   recipient definition that says the recipient is sometimes called
>   the earner.
> Manu Sporny:  We don't have to review the glossary on the call
>   today, just a heads up that I think it's aligned with what the
>   group thinks. If you have a spare second please read through it
>   and send review feedback to the mailing list. If you disagree
>   with the text please say "This is what the text says today and
>   this is what I think it should be changed to"
> Manu Sporny:  Nate, that's great feedback, please send it to the
>   mailing list so the editors don't lose track of it.
> Gregg Kellogg:  If you can create an issue on the website that
>   makes sure it gets tracked.
> Gregg Kellogg:  A good idea is to transfer things that come in
>   into github issues.
> Nate Otto: On credential consumer vs requestor: requestor is an
>   awkward term a little bit, but it is more specific than consumer,
>   because consumers can either be pushed credentials or can pull
>   (request) them.
> Eric Korb:
>
> https://github.com/mozilla/openbadges-specification/blob/master/Assertion/latest.md
> Nate Otto: The link Eric shared is an old version of the Open
>   Badges specification. Latest version at https://openbadgespec.org
> Eric Korb:  When I first built this I used a lot of the
>   "Assertion" link. We're trying to draw parallels, does it make
>   sense to link back to that spec to create synonymous
>   representations?
> Eric Korb:  I don't know if we have one on every item but we have
>   a lot of them. There are sometimes things that are duplicated.
>   The context stands alone, but on top of that we have a vernacular
>   with overlap. I think the context needs to be a whole different
>   treatment from what we're doing with this glossary.
> Nate Otto: I'll take an action to review this glossary.
> Manu Sporny:  I think that's the right approach, the context is
>   far more low-level. There are more terms in there (glossary).
> Nate Otto: Good work so far, all.
> Manu Sporny:
>   http://opencreds.org/specs/source/glossary/#cross-references
> Manu Sporny:  To answer the question, "What do we do with
>   synonyms, etc?" ... the way it should work is we take a glossary
>   term and we cross reference it to "assertion" in the OBI spec.
> Manu Sporny:  That makes it clear that when we say "claim" we
>   mean "assertion". I don't know if that's quite true today for
>   that example, but that's how things line up.
> Manu Sporny:  That's how we do it with other standards bodies
>   etc.
> Manu Sporny:  With cross references.
> Gregg Kellogg:  There's actually a mechanism specifically
>   referring to external definitions and that's the place to do it.
>   We'll also need an ontology, a prescribed vocabulary for mark up.
>   The context becomes derived from the ontology. Glossary -
>   ontology - context. I have some tools that I've created to manage
>   all of these things in a spreadsheet and emit all the appropriate
>   documents. And when I'm ready we can port those over for our
>   purposes.
> Manu Sporny:  Yes, thank you Gregg. We'll definitely need a
>   vocabulary. We've pieced some of that together today with the
>   demo.
> Nate Otto: On the glossary topic, here's a sentence that I wrote
>   to show the difference between a few different terms that are
>   often confused in the Open Badges space:
> Nate Otto: "An issuer organization decides to start a badge
>   program, so its staff members design a badge system to go with
>   the program’s content delivery and assessment practices. Then
>   they run badge software to issue badges to recipients. "
> Manu Sporny:  I think there's an open badges vocab ... it's kind
>   of been an amalgam of a bunch of different vocabs.
> Eric Korb:  This is for Matt Stone. I looked at the Acclaim API
>   documentation and I noticed that you guys have some specific
>   terms I haven't seen before. I was wondering if you could take a
>   look [bad audio].
> Eric Korb:  I'll send the link over, in the API documentation on
>   Acclaim, I saw some documentation I hadn't seen before, I saw the
>   term "guarantor" and I was wondering if we should include that in
>   the glossary.
> Matt Stone:  Yeah, sure.
>
> Topic: Vision document
>
> Matt Stone:  It's "grantor" not "guarantor".
> Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/vision/
> Manu Sporny:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y92W2FjGKb-ECrdXqtPk-nPzfGZ1FVGIVrtex9A437E/edit
> Gregg Kellogg: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/vision/
> Manu Sporny:  I went through all of the Web Payment specific
>   things and looked at the goals that we have in our executive
>   summary and tried to elaborate on those. That combined with
>   working on these blog posts has really helped refine, I think,
>   the statements in the vision document. If you look at section
>   3...
> Manu Sporny:
>
> http://opencreds.org/specs/source/vision/#desireable-properties-of-a-credentials-architecture
> Manu Sporny:  We call them "desirable properties for a
>   credentials architecture"
> Eric Korb:
>   https://www.youracclaim.com/docs/issuer_authorizations#get-grantors
> Manu reads section 3.
> Manu Sporny:  That section translates all of the goals we had
>   written down in our executive summary a few months ago; it puts
>   them into the vision doc in a pretty succinct way. Any questions
>   on the vision doc or where we are with it?
> None
> Manu Sporny:  The next step is review of that document and to
>   send the feedback to the mailing list/github tracker.
> Gregg Kellogg:  If we remove the large terminology section that
>   would be good.
> Manu Sporny:  Yeah, it should be smaller. I think you have to
>   specify an extra param to do that.
> Gregg Kellogg:  Oh yeah, that's what it is.
> Manu Sporny:  I don't know if roadmap, use cases, or capabilities
>   have been updated in the last week. Anything anyone wants to
>   mention on those?
> Manu Sporny:  I think we can probably strike discussion of the
>   glossary and vision docs on calls after this one until we get
>   review feedback. There's no real reason to discuss them on calls
>   until then.
> Eric Korb: @All I'm out next week.
> Manu Sporny:  We do need review comments flowing in, so if we
>   don't see that coming in over the next week we'll ask people to
>   take actions to do it.
> Manu Sporny:  Once we get roadmap and use cases into shape that's
>   really good news because that's effectively what an IG would have
>   done. At that point is becomes more difficult for people to
>   suggest we need to create an IG because the output of an IG is
>   those types of docs.
> Manu Sporny:  I think we should have a complete set of docs for a
>   WG to pick up by the end of Sept/early Oct.
> Manu Sporny:  I think that's it for the call today.
>
>
>
>
>