Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

I don't believe this item is appropriate for publishing as a note, as cited by others on this thread the charter clearly rules out of scope API definitions. VC-API is mentioned under section 2.4 - other deliverables, however as clearly articulated there, the intent is to publish a developer guide for implementation best practices of the VC-API and this document is not such a resource, instead it is the entire definition of the API and protocol.

Thanks,
Tobias

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2022 12:03:43 PM
To: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>; Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>; Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@avast.com>; Kristina Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda@microsoft.com>; Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside of our organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.


I believe it would be improper for us to publish work done by others as our own.  We should not let the working group become a rubber-stamp for third-party work.



Furthermore, per https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/#scope, APIs are explicitly out of scope in our charter.  Before we would publish a document with APIs, we would need to recharter to place them in scope.



                                                       -- Mike



From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:28 AM
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>; Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@avast.com>; Kristina Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda@microsoft.com>; Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note



Some of us have been swamped by IETF 115 in London, has there been any additional comments on this?

OS



On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 3:10 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:

Hi CCG Chairs, VCWG Chairs, and community members,

As many of you are aware, we have been working on a Verifiable
Credentials API[1][2] for the better part of two years, meeting
weekly[3] to move the specification forward. The Traceability
Interoperability[4] group builds upon parts of this specification and
specializes it for use with supply chain use cases. We have VC API
interoperability test suites[5] and it is what drives the
interoperability mechanism used in the CHAPI VC Issuer Playground[6].

We currently have 11 implementations[5][6] of the Verifiable
Credentials API with more in development.

The W3C Verifiable Credentials Working Group Charter lists this
specification as a non-normative deliverable[7]. The expectation is
that it will be published as a Note given that it documents one
mechanism that the market is using to move Verifiable Credentials from
Issuers to Holders to Verifiers. It is also expected that the VC API
will power the VCWG's new test suite.

The CCG VC API Work Item group has prepared the first publishable
Draft Note of the specification[8] for publication by the VCWG. This
version of the specification is a stripped down version that only
contains VC issuing, VC status changing, VC verifying, and VP creation
and is what we have consensus to publish via the CCG VC API Work Item
group.

Now, here's where things get a bit weird. The CCG VC API Work Item
group intends to continue to work on the VC API. W3C Notes have zero
Intellectual Property Release (IPR) protection on them, which means
that if we hand over the VC API repo to VCWG, we will introduce an IPR
gap to the work. That is, in this instance, we have better IPR
protection on it when it's hosted by CCG than if we were to transfer
it over to the VCWG. What we can do, however, is keep the repo in the
CCG (so it continues to enjoy IPR protection) and publish an updatable
fork of the specification via VCWG (we have tested this in the VC API
group, and it works great). For example, you can view what this looks
like here (this is a fork of the VC API spec, specific to VCWG, that
is hosted from my personal Github location):

https://msporny.github.io/vc-api-vcwg-note/

The only thing that would change when we move it to VCWG is that the
URL would change to:

https://w3c.github.io/vc-api-note/

As far as action items are concerned:

1. W3C CCG Chairs along with W3C VCWG Chairs and Staff will need to
discuss and determine if this is an acceptable path forward.

2. There will need to be a proposal in the CCG to allow VCWG to
publish snapshots of the VC API via the VCWG.

3. There will need to be a proposal in the VCWG to publish the VC API
as a Draft Note.

This is a request to the CCG and VCWG Chairs to start that process
given that 1) we have achieved consensus in the CCG VC API Work Item
group to do the above, and 2) it is listed as a VCWG charter
deliverable.

-- manu

[1]https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-api/
[2]https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-interop/draft/
[3]https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-vocab/
[4]https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-api-issuer-test-suite/#conformance
[5]https://playground.chapi.io/issuer
[6]https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/
[7]https://www.w3.org/2022/06/verifiable-credentials-wg-charter.html#ig-other-deliverables
[8]https://msporny.github.io/vc-api-vcwg-note/

--
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/




--

ORIE STEELE

Chief Technical Officer

www.transmute.industries<http://www.transmute.industries>



[https://drive.google.com/a/transmute.industries/uc?id=1hbftCJoB5KdeV_kzj4eeyS28V3zS9d9c&export=download]<https://www.transmute.industries/>