W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2021

[MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2021-04-13 12pm ET

From: W3C CCG Chairs <w3c.ccg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <6075eee2.1c69fb81.dbfb3.09e6@mx.google.com>
Thanks to Peter Mackinnon for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-04-13 

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

----------------------------------------------------------------
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/ Minutes for 2021-04-13

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Apr/0099.html
Topics:
  1. Announcements & ReIntroductions
  2. Work Item: Verifiable Condition
  3. Work item: Traceability API	
  4. CCG 101 Developer to Developer Intro
  5. Linked Data Signatures Charter 
Organizer:
  Kim Hamilton Duffy and Heather Vescent and Wayne Chang
Scribe:
  Peter Mackinnon
Present:
  Mike Prorock, Ivan Herman, Orie Steele, Amy Guy, Peter Mackinnon, 
  Charles E. Lehner, Markus Sabadello, Heather Vescent, Juan 
  Caballero, Joe Andrieu, Matthieu Collé, Ryan Grant, Kim Hamilton 
  Duffy, Erica Connell, Kayode Ezike, Manu Sporny, Ted Thibodeau, 
  Kimberly Linson, Dave Longley
Audio:
  https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-04-13/audio.ogg

<jack_tanner_(gimly)> Hi everyone
<orie> yep
Peter Mackinnon is scribing.
Heather Vescent:  Welcome to CCG meeting 4/13, we will start 
  linked-data sigs, CCG 101, and several proposed work items:
Heather Vescent:  Topic: IP Note
Heather Vescent: Join the XXG: 
  https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/join
Heather Vescent: IRC: http://irc.w3.org/?channels=ccg
<pchampin> Pierre-Antoine Champin present+
Heather Vescent:  Topic: Introductions & Reintroductions
Pchampin: new to VC groups, interested in JSON-LD, I'm a 
  professor and W3 member
Jack_Tanner_(Gimly): Hi, I'm Jack Tanner, here for new spec 
  discussion
Casper_Roleofs_(Gimly): exited to be here
Robert_Long: also glad to be here
<robert_long> Having some issues hearing certain people in 
  Firefox.
Heather Vescent:  Q? - brings up queue / q+ - joins the queue / 
  q- - leaves the queue
Heather Vescent:  Any Re-Introductions?

Topic: Announcements & ReIntroductions

Heather Vescent: Announcement & reminders: 
  https://w3c-ccg.github.io/announcements/
Heather Vescent:  Anyone want to speak to IIW?
Juan Caballero:  Heres the link
Juan Caballero: https://internetidentityworkshop.com/

Topic: Work Item: Verifiable Condition

Heather Vescent: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/188
  ... thanks to Jack Tanner, heres the floor
Heather Vescent: Verification Methods New Work Item Proposal: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/188
<kimhd> Hi everyone, welcome back to the normal time!
Jack_Tanner: current Verification methods have one key, this new 
  type allows for multi signatures
<orie_> big +1 to the work item
  ... a new proposed verification method, also a way to show 
  relationships between DID methods. More sophistication for secure 
  identities
<orie_> very much needed
  ... welcoming any comments or questions. Lastly, this 
  verification method type should support several Key 
  Infrastructures and more advanced DIDs
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Hey guys, Heather's computer crashed, I'm 
  taking over for now
  ... manu youre up in the Q
<heathervescent_> All - my system crashed, give me a moment to 
  restart
Manu Sporny:  There are a number of things I've been commenting 
  on
<heathervescent> All - I'm back. Thanks Kimhd for filling in.
Jack_Tanner: the design is intentionally recursive
  ... there are a few other considerations to subtypes not in 
  this work proposal
  ... some might lead to security concerns, and we didn't have 
  clear use cases
Markus Sabadello:  +1 To work item
  ... also generally interested in new and creative verification 
  methods. This seems generally applicable
Ryan Grant:  One question i have is: is this a signature scheme 
  or a DID method? What exactly is it?
Jack_Tanner: this will specify specific conditions on how to fill 
  a verification method
  ... this will be on the verification method array, and also on 
  the verification-method property
Orie Steele:  Just a note, not all DID methods expose security in 
  the documentation
Orie Steele:  That was helpful [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
Jack_Tanner: this would allow to check for verifiable credential 
  fulfillment
  ... it has function higher up in the SSI chain
Markus Sabadello:  Verification methods dont have to be based on 
  cryptographic signatures
  ... this method combines other verification methods without 
  concern for what they are
Heather Vescent:  Any comments or objections?
  ... Jack, do you have a repo to transfer over
  ... we can discuss the details after the meeting

Topic: Work item: Traceability API	

Heather Vescent: Traceability API: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/191
  ... moving on, Tracability API and general discussion
Orie Steele:  Tracability Vocabulary conversation...
Heather Vescent: Context thread for this request: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/pull/168
  ... credentials are not being exchanged. We need a new set of 
  "holder" end-points (p2p)
  ... We've been trying to define a usecase scenario for 
  verifiable presentations
  ... this new work item is an opportunity to deal with 
  interoperability
  ... we plan to build on top of CCG specs without breaking them
  ... trying to get the API to work across different vendors
<troy_ronda> Another example of a request for exchange APIs (so 
  these scenarios go beyond supply chain): 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/issues/176
Heather Vescent:  Generally, we need to try and work with a 
  better understanding of the existing work being incorporated
Manu Sporny:  +1 To heathers comment
  ... the Tracability API seems like a fork to the specification 
  without proper discussion
  ... it shows we are working, but we should discuss the actions 
  more
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To Heather and Manu. This move severely 
  compounds my concerns I raised in the vc-http-api PR
<orie> merging from forks is how progress is made
Ted Thibodeau: +1 Fork of 
  not-really-understood/described/discussed thing to 
  even-less-understood/described/discussed thing is premature and 
  likely to lead to less interop, not more
<heathervescent> @TallTed, would you like to be on the queue?
Orie Steele:  I agree with manu about wanting to work
  ... there has been long conversation about VC-HTTP-API which 
  has led us here
  ... forks should not be seen as anything combative to the 
  general process
<kimhd> forks are not combative; the language in the work item is 
  combative (as well as refusal to accept use case feedback)
  ... there's been no consensus on what the Traceability API 
  people have been trying to do
<manu> I strongly disagree with what Orie is saying and the way 
  he's presenting the information; what he is saying has not been 
  my experience.
<tallted> repeating the same words again and again is not 
  productive use of time.
  ... progress needs to be made to see if the changes are 
  worthwhile
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 Heather
Manu Sporny: +1 Heather
Juan Caballero: +1 But haven't checked IIW schedule :D
<kimhd> or the week after
Heather Vescent:  We might need to move this specific discussion 
  to a more dedicated time/forum
Juan Caballero:  There is a call in about an hour with 
  Tracability Vocab folks where we can talk about this
Manu Sporny: +1 To give it a call
<manu> Meet next week anyway
Heather Vescent:  Thoughts on meeting next week regardless of 
  IIW? Regular time?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To discuss next week at usual time
  ... no objections, Kimhd might you be available to moderate 
  next week?
<troy_ronda> It would be good to expand the scope beyond 
  traceability - generically, have HTTP APIs to facilitate 
  exchanges including mediation and links to wallet selection and 
  authorization.
<heathervescent> -Juan_Caballero
Orie Steele:  I support more time dedicated to this convo, and 
  faster pace working
Orie Steele:  Is there a 15m presentation on the traceability 
  that you're working on? [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
<orie> rgrant links are in the propossal
Heather Vescent:  Kimberly_Linson, CCG 101 introduction?

Topic: CCG 101 Developer to Developer Intro

<heathervescent> Thanks all for your agreement to discuss the 
  work item at a call next week.
Kimberly Linson:  Lets start with: "Why is there a CCG 101?" We 
  want more people to contribute
  ... working with RANDA Solutions, we are passionate and excited 
  for VCs
<juan_caballero> juan AND KALIYA'S
  ... personally, I have a 101 level understanding of these 
  conversation topics, and now I need to understand the "next 
  level"
  ... so in the 101 we have discussed how to handle that
Juan Caballero: Medium.com doesn't allow co-author attribution, 
  which is why we need VCs for IP ASAP... ( https://sourcecheck.org 
  )
George Lund: i personally want to understand this space outside 
  of profession
  ... lots of people coming into the ecosystem need an 
  understanding of this technical space
Juan Caballero: CCG101 is more than welcome to bang on the DIF's 
  FAQ working draft here:
Kimberly Linson:  CCG 101 has identified a few topics we need 
  help with from the CCG group
  ... "What is the path for first-time understanding?"
  ... there should be a collection of quality 
  instruction/explanation
  ... "What does it mean to make a VC?"
  ... can the CCG 101 group see one built to lead us into 
  additional questions?
<george_lund_(gds)> Just wanted to mention that we've already had 
  great support from CCG members like Manu and Mike Prorock so 
  thanks for that :-)
Heather Vescent:  This community is built upon the collection of 
  members/ people work
  ... the CCG group's goal is not to overburden anyone with 
  jargon/ confusion
Juan Caballero: Raw materials that may help CCG101 efforts (sorry 
  I can't contribute directly until 1July) can be found linked 
  here: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/CCG101/issues/3#issuecomment-818887263
  ... for the community, what feedback on how to proceed with 
  possible Dev2Dev conversations?
Orie Steele:  Followed some links, got stuck here: 
  https://github.com/OR13/traceability-api/blob/main/docs/sections/api-spec.html 
  [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
Mike Prorock:  I'd be willing to commit some of my time, 
  concerned about having a limited perspective on information
<juan_caballero> oh and anyone in the group is happy to crash my 
  DIF "office hours" every week, they've been pretty dead lately 
  anyways!
Ryan Grant:  https://or13.github.io/traceability-api/#api-spec 
  [scribe assist by Orie Steele]
Ryan Grant:  https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-vocab/ 
  [scribe assist by Orie Steele]
<juan_caballero> +100
  ... developing specific parts to this technology keeps my 
  focused on one part of this entire tech
Orie Steele: +1 To noting that we are all biased
<juan_caballero> recorded VC-HTTP-API special call sounds like a 
  GREAT format for generating very urgently needed educational 
  support for that project/family of projects
<juan_caballero> the VC-EDU calls are a PARAGON of transparent, 
  open schema design, fwiw
<manu_sporny> You can't give people a 2 hour heads up and expect 
  people to be able to shift their schedules around, Juan -- need 
  at least a few days of heads up
<juan_caballero> that's why I emailed last week
Mike Prorock: +1 Building on a body of knowledge
<juan_caballero> you responded to the email, remember? ;)
<orie_> ^
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  VCs are difficult to completely understand 
  for anyone new. This attempt to work with the CCG 101 group can 
  be a good move
<mprorock> that would be perfect
Heather Vescent:  Any CCG 101 concerns?
  ... is there time to cover the next topic? Manu?
Ivan Herman:  Theres an issue with losing a week for the 
  work-items discussion. Just mentioning
<dlongley> we just scheduled a different agenda item for next 
  week anyway
  ... prior scheduling makes next week difficult
<dlongley> (the vc-http-api/traceability stuff)
Manu Sporny:  Suggesting Friday, same time?
<juan_caballero> deep apologies for dragging out the VC-HTTP-API 
  stuff, Ivan and Manu!
Ivan Herman:  Can keep on for additional time now to continue 
  discussing
<juan_caballero> /me 💪pete💪
Ivan Herman: Proposed charter text to read: 
  https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/
Manu Sporny:  Topic: Linked Data Signatures

Topic: Linked Data Signatures Charter 

Heather Vescent: Linked Data Signatures: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Mar/0273.html
Ivan Herman: Issues: https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/issues
  ... in a VC, "proofs" are what we are talking about. Making an 
  offical W3C WG to standardize the "proof" part of a VC
<screenshare> the bottom part of a VC
  ... this is not a specifically a VC, this is more commonly 
  datascience
  ... Ivan, thank you for the charter, the floor is yours
Ivan Herman:  The plan is to have a very focused charter
  ... important to understand, this is not solely designed for VC 
  work. This deals with semantic issues also
  ... we would like to organize the charter for the 
  community-at-large, but the VC WG can benefit from the work
Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/index.html
  ... process-wise, the charter is a draft and is going through 
  the W3C stages moving forward
  ... maybe early May will have a vote on finalizing
  ... we would need, from this and any other community, 
  comments/feed back on the charter
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/issues
  ... it would help to see community interest, the W3C loves 
  seeing this
  ... one last thing, we haven't identified potential WG 
  co-chairs
  ... we would like to have a co-chair from CCG, and one from the 
  larger community
Markus Sabadello:  Ivan, can you repeat where its best to voice 
  support for the charter/workgroup
Ivan Herman:  As much noise as possible is always good
Heather Vescent:  Any final questions? comments?
  ... thank you Ivan for pushing for that last conversation
  ... that is the meeting! Thanks to everyone!
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2021 19:20:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 13 April 2021 19:20:19 UTC