Re: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-04-19

Sorry for the confusion.  The one in the VCTF space is current for the
draft charter.  Navigate from here:

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/README.md - this links to the
charter and the use cases.

As to the extended use cases, those are in the opencreds.org space:

http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/

I hope to get back to that one in the next couple of weeks.  Reviews of the
VCTF use-cases are the time critical thing.

Thanks!



On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> On 4/19/16 10:12 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
> > Use cases doc is suffering from
> >   lack of reviews.
>
> I don't know if others felt the same, but I took a step back after Manu's
> report of what happened in the blocking/bifurcation of the Web Payments
> work. My own reasoning was that if this work is not going anywhere (if
> fully blocked by Google and MSFT, in other words) then my time would be
> better spent elsewhere. That's a difficult call to make though.
>
> New explanations from this Telecon Minutes, combined with knowing about
> the UN identify conferences (the UNCITRAL April and the UN May) about
> identity, seem considerably more hopeful -- even if W3C doesn't use it, it
> seems like it may make its way to wherever it is most needed.
>
> So one housekeeping question: I didn't see a link to the use-cases in the
> Telecon Minutes. I attempted to use links I had to get to the 'current'
> Use-cases draft, and got confused. I want to be sure I'm looking at the
> right one.
>
> The link I had was for February 29, and it's long and I suspect has been
> amended:
> http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/
>
> So I clicked on the 'current draft' link at the top, and my browser
> complained that there was no security certificate (expired):
> https://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases
>
> So then I did a Google search for the use cases and got to this, April
> 12th:
> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/
>
> Is that correct? This is the one to review?
>
> I also know that Shane spoke of preparing (has prepared?) a separate
> 'extended' use-cases document. Is that also to be looked at? (And, to be
> clear, the one above on April 12 isn't that one?)
>
> Steven
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops