Re: Credentials CG charter vote result

Whats your suggestion to make it discoverable?

Honestly.  IDK.  I"ll put in my presentations how i have to refer people to
either the non-discoverable link and this list traffic; and/or the
archive.org versioning to track history.

far simpler.  cheers.  i'm sure it'll be blunt enough for others too.


On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:04 Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
wrote:

> > I reverted the page with the original charter to the previous state and
> referenced it from the latest:
> https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter-20140808/
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:27 PM Timothy Holborn <
> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kim.  can you point to the old charter?
>> https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/page/5/  ?  I still can't find
>> it?
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 16:54 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> --
> 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
>