Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2017-02-07

Thanks to Jonathan Holt for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:

http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2017-02-07/

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

----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2017-02-07

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Feb/0016.html
Topics:
  1. Agenda Review and Introductions
  2. Status of Verifiable Claims WG Creation
  3. Status of Face to Face in March
  4. Action Item Review
  5. Discuss work on requirements gathering
  6. Use Case Issue 18: Holder Terminology
  7. Use Case Issue 34: Lifecycle Engagement - next steps
Resolutions:
  1. Do not close yet Issue 18 yet.
Action Items:
  1. Matt send email regarding face-to-face opportunities in next 
    2-3 days.
  2. Nate Otto will take Data Model issue #9 and #6.
  3. Manu to assign new team members to vc-data-model for issue 
    processing.
  4. Dan Burnett to send out presentation about submitting Pull 
    Requests.
  5. Dan Burnett to discuss Google Doc with Manu.
Organizer:
  Manu Sporny
Scribe:
  Jonathan Holt
Present:
  Jonathan Holt, Dan Burnett, Matt Stone, Manu Sporny, Nate Otto, 
  Joe Andrieu, Adam Lake, Adam Migus, Dave Longley, David I. Lehn, 
  Matthew Larson, Richard Varn, Colleen Kennedy, David Ezell
Audio:
  http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2017-02-07/audio.ogg

Jonathan Holt is scribing.

Topic: Agenda Review and Introductions

Dan Burnett:   Any changes to Agenda?
Dan Burnett:   Adding item, Pull Request discussion wrt. 
  Revocation.

Topic: Status of Verifiable Claims WG Creation

Dan Burnett:   Status of WG.  Not much changed, some discussion 
  about charter.  Phil proposed change, unsure if it is necessary.

Topic: Status of Face to Face in March

Dan Burnett:   The was a possibility of a F2F in March.   Turns 
  out 2/3 chairs can not make it.  Burn sent a request to schedule 
  the meeting and asked if anyone can attend.  No reply.  Time is 
  close.  Chairs want to know the feeling of people to attend.
Dan Burnett: Potential date is March 21st
Date for f2F is march 21st
This is for Chicago assoc with web payments meeting
Matt Stone:   Need time to plan.
Dan Burnett:   Issue is that someone new to the group needs time 
  to plan meeting
Dan Burnett:   Objections?
Manu Sporny:   Perhaps we should delay a F2F
Manu Sporny: 
  https://www.w3.org/2017/02/06-wpay-minutes.html#item03
Manu Sporny:   We brought up the VC WG up yesterday.  Still 
  possible to hold a meeting.
  ... as discussed with w3C in the past, we had the option for a 
  formal meeting, but without chairs, difficult.
Nate Otto: Some more time between official word that we'll start 
  and first face to face would improve chances of me being able to 
  get my org to join W3C by the meeting.
  ... the question becomes, when should we have a meeting?  
  usually 2 months after the w3c group.  Brings us to the June time 
  frame.
Manu Sporny: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2015JulSep/0058.html
  ... the may not be a good time.  we should do a doodle poll. 
  and where, when.
Dan Burnett:   We haven't discussed next steps.  We don't have to 
  wait until official, need feedback from w3c.
  ... as soon as it looks close and no longer discussing the 
  charter then let' do doodle poll.
Matt Stone:   To manu, comment.  look for an invite from matt a 
  request for suggestions for F2F this year.
  ... and if there are opportunities to tag on to other events.

ACTION: Matt send email regarding face-to-face opportunities in 
  next 2-3 days.

Topic: Action Item Review

Matt Stone: Running action items: https://goo.gl/V4XTBT
Dan Burnett:   Need response for use-cases.
  ... need update data-model not use-cases
Nate Otto:   A lot of jargon in use-cases.  need to draw out more 
  meaning
Manu Sporny:   A while ago people volunteered.  Nat, jonnycrunch. 
   then we got into healthcare privacy discussion.  Need 
  explanation of privacy detail. but this wasn't the ask.
  ... we should have assigned specific details on point.
  ... we should ask specific direction for volunteers
Nate Otto:  Perhaps if we have more conversation on github as 
  issue
Nate Otto:   Dig into specific ticket.
Manu Sporny:   Next step - assign specific issue to volunteer, 
  1-2 paragraphs.
Joe Andrieu:   Question - my understanding was to take on the 
  coorelation ,,,, here are some issues regarding the spec. rather 
  than language for the spec.
Manu Sporny:   Was was asked was language for the spec. not more 
  issues.
Nate Otto: I can take #6 
  https://github.com/opencreds/vc-data-model/issues/6

ACTION: Nate Otto will take Data Model issue #9 and #6.

  ... spec language.  initial ask. we have blank spaces in spec.
  ... the spec is fine but is raises more issues.
  ... the ask . the text doesn't need to be perfect.  we need 
  something there.
Nate Otto: I can also take #9 
  https://github.com/opencreds/vc-data-model/issues/9
Dan Burnett:  Volunteer actions
Nate Otto: Sorry, don't have privileges to assign. Github 
  username is ottonomy, so someone in the org can assign me.
Dan Burnett:   RE: revocation models
Manu Sporny:   Nate can't assign himself. need designation for 
  write.

ACTION: Manu to assign new team members to vc-data-model for 
  issue processing.

Manu Sporny: Add revocation model to verfiable claims data model 
  spec: https://github.com/opencreds/vc-data-model/pull/36
Manu Sporny:   Will add revocation model to VC date model
  ... this is an example where we add additional details to spec
Manu Sporny:   Walk thru of pull request for #36
  ... there were some significant changes with update language.  
  back and forth last few days refining the PR
  ... 16 back and forths, but resulted in reviewers saying 'this 
  looks good to me'
  ... if you assign yourself an issue.  make a change, add PR.  
  tag reviewers and get feedback.
Dan Burnett:   I sent out a ppt regarding how to do PR.
  ... whenever you go to PR you can see latest commit.

ACTION: Dan Burnett to send out presentation about submitting 
  Pull Requests.

Dan Burnett:   Adrian and manu were going to do a review 
  regarding privacy.
Manu Sporny:  Joe is leading it.
Manu Sporny: JoeAndrieu, jonnycrunch, ottonomy: I've added each 
  of you to the team, you should be able to self-assign issues now.
Joe Andrieu:   I'm a volunteer. adam on queue and lead us.
Dan Burnett: S/regarding privacy/regarding privacy for Adrian's 
  use case/
Adam Lake:   I've got the xls and will be starting.  take an 
  ititial stab at it.
Dan Burnett:   Joe, last week you also agreed to update the 
  github issues.  any updates.
Joe Andrieu:   I did it after the last call.  the Rx discussion 
  regarding correlatability forked, updated one of them.
Joe Andrieu:   I updated issue #38
Adam Migus: Sure, will provide it
Manu Sporny: 
  https://opencreds.github.io/vc-data-model/#usage-patterns
Jonathan Holt:   I was traveling.  sorry , I'll check the work in 
  box.
Manu Sporny:   Regard usage pattern.  can the model be used for 
  correlatability.  the question for this issue, when you use id in 
  VC, can you add some language regarding how correlatability be 
  done?
Joe Andrieu:   Yes.  looking at usage pattern.  there are some 
  other places where it can be a problem.
Adam Lake: There is a PDF slide presentation in an email titled 
  “PR Tutorial Part II (Was Re: Agenda for January 10 VCTF meeting) 
  “ from January 9th
Dan Burnett: Yes Adam, that's part II.  Part I was in December.
Manu Sporny:   We may want to zoom into one example of 
  coorelation.   for example. if you use your driver's license to 
  by alcohol, then you use proof of age to some who owns the store, 
  then, ...
  ... you can be correlated. usage-patterns.
Joe Andrieu:  Yes, that issue is about usage patterns. i can add 
  some language regarding this.
  ... sometimes you are using these claims to DO correlation 
  sometimes we wan to avoid it.
Manu Sporny:   Look at section 5 text.  if you feel text is 
  lacking, fill in.
  ... don't take that list as final.  it is draft, please update.
  ... whole section is up for grabs.
Dan Burnett:  They are attachments not links. Part I is from Dec 
  13th entitled "Agenda: Verifiable Claims Teleconference - 
  Tuesday, December 13th, 2016"  I can upload the PDF's to google 
  docs and link people to them if that would help. [scribe assist 
  by Adam Lake]

Topic: Discuss work on requirements gathering

Dan Burnett:   Will add links later.
Dan Burnett: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Feb/0015.html
Dan Burnett:   Chairs have been discussing ways to acccelearte 
  progress.
  ... these resources are a good focus point for discussion.
  ... chairs sent out a call for issues. not sure priority, yet, 
  but let's see what we get first.
Manu Sporny: https://opencreds.github.io/vc-use-cases/#user-tasks
Manu Sporny:   Question - use task section is our starting list?
Dan Burnett:  No, it contains items that should be used as a 
  starting point.
  ... encourage building out details regarding list.
Joe Andrieu: +1 Google doc
Manu Sporny:   Should we make a google doc?
Dan Burnett:   Not everyone likes google doc, mailing list is 
  archival.
Joe Andrieu:   Could we just make an issue in github?
Joe Andrieu:  Could we just make an issue in github? [scribe 
  assist by Joe Andrieu]
Manu Sporny:   Could we just send the google doc to the mailing 
  list for achive?
Manu Sporny:  Not everyone as access to google doc
Joe Andrieu:   Issue with mailing list is it have other traffic.
Dan Burnett:  My issue is that it is "live"
Jonathan Holt: +1 For google doc

ACTION: Dan Burnett to discuss Google Doc with Manu.

Topic: Use Case Issue 18: Holder Terminology

Dan Burnett: https://github.com/opencreds/vc-use-cases/issues/18
Dan Burnett:   We believe that it is OK to close.  objections?  
  comments?
Dan Burnett:   Matt suggesting we close
Joe Andrieu:  I prefer 'presenter'
Dave Longley:   When the WG starts up, we might have new 
  participants that also want to change the terminology, let's keep 
  this open for now.

RESOLUTION: Do not close yet Issue 18 yet.

Dan Burnett:   Decision is not to close it yet.

Topic: Use Case Issue 34: Lifecycle Engagement - next steps

Dan Burnett: https://github.com/opencreds/vc-use-cases/issues/34
Joe Andrieu:   On issue #39, matt brought up presumption 
  background/managing their portfolio. I would prefer life-cylce.
  ... we could do this for Rx,  need discussion with matt.
  ... about a paragraph for each step. don't have the resources 
  or space for this.
Dan Burnett:  So? what does that mean?
Joe Andrieu:   This is a format for a deep dive in our process. 
  if matt want a deep dive. I'm happy to work it into our model.  
  I'm working with chris allen for rebooting web of trust.
  ... next steps, decide which topic to invest time.
Manu Sporny:   'Where we put focus' - we have the right people in 
  retail, education and healthcare.  digital bizare we are 
  interested in retail.
  ... we have three choices: healthcare, education ( need help), 
  retail ( digital bazaar working on it)
Dan Burnett:   The answer is whoever is willing to do it.
  ... let's start with those three
Manu Sporny: +1
Adam Lake: 
  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-9PunarDjIoJctx55BiJB109cIAOh_atBE5xxnQklPc/edit#slide=id.p4
Nate Otto: Education can potentially lean on the use 
  cases/capabilities defined for open badges. See "in 2.0" column 
  here. 
  https://github.com/openbadges/openbadges-specification/projects/1

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 20:01:22 UTC