- From: CCG Minutes Bot <minutes@w3c-ccg.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:42:13 +0000
Thanks to Our Robot Overlords and Our Robot Overlords for scribing this week! The transcript for the call is now available here: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2022-10-11-traceability/ Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes. Audio of the meeting is available at the following location: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2022-10-11-traceability/audio.ogg ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verifiable Traceability Task Force Transcript for 2022-10-11 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/blob/main/AGENDA.md Organizer: Orie Steele, Mike Prorock, Mahmoud Alkhraishi Scribe: Our Robot Overlords and Our Robot Overlords Present: Chris Abernethy, Mahmoud Alkhraishi, Ben - Transmute, nis, Adam C, vivien, Russell Hofvendahl (mesur.io), Orie Steele Our Robot Overlords are scribing. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: I did that wrong I'm not. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Looks like it's working. Chris_Abernethy: I did not hear the recording his starting started. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: The transcriber started with looks like they're according to not started but I do have a Star Trek let me talk light on and off. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Can't even stop it. <orie> sry I am late https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/436 https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/167 https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/185 <chris_abernethy> @mahmoud, transcriber looks broken? Our Robot Overlords are scribing. <mahmoud> looks like its back up now? <mahmoud> i toggled it on/off Orie Steele: To Json schema depending on if you're in a standards organization or you know or if you're in open source world you can just point to whatever you want but from a formal perspective Json schema and we've been formalized standard even though it has like a lots of adoption and lots of implementing something that kind of thing so I don't think we would ask. <chris_abernethy> yes, thanks! Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1 <mahmoud> thats my impression too Orie Steele: Regarding these things I think we've already asked the json-ld community group regarding it and their answer is was basically like hey it looks like what you're doing is cool but it's not really json-ld and it's not really schema.org so you should just keep doing it we're doing it that's kind of what I gathered from those but someone else wants to pick up that ball and try and make a play I'm happy to support. Chris_Abernethy: The literal crickets in the background is the nice touch. Chris_Abernethy: Or should I add pending close to this and we can just pick it up again in a few weeks. Chris_Abernethy: This is now pending close. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/231 Chris_Abernethy: Next issue is issue number 231 all right this is another one from you. Orie Steele: So this is from my last review and foreign charged Declaration was was broken so let's go and let's see is it still broken or in charge declaration is still broken. Orie Steele: Taking a screenshot. Orie Steele: And updating the ticket. Orie Steele: All right and there it is and we can move on. Chris_Abernethy: Yes thank you for taking that. Chris_Abernethy: Okay next issue is 235. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/235 Chris_Abernethy: This is another one from worry regarding medication list 2020 status. Orie Steele: All right let's do the same thing. Orie Steele: This one seems fixed to me. Chris_Abernethy: There is a merged PR from Benjamin. Chris_Abernethy: Or if it's going to work. Orie Steele: I'm going to close and I'm going to comment and close. Chris_Abernethy: Perfect thank you. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/464 Chris_Abernethy: Okay then she 464 Benjamin this is one of yours regarding publishing minutes. Ben_-_Transmute: Okay I think I think this has been solved by Chris has instructions on traceability interrupt I guess we copy these over those over. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: No I think what. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: So I think what I did here was I added the initial minutes to this and then on the trace and drop side Chris did a rehaul of it think it's a really good idea to move them here yeah. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Or we just linked from here to there then also would make it easy. Ben_-_Transmute: Let's see as far as the questions do we need to boot everyone out of the meeting when we're done. Ben_-_Transmute: Okay at least the means repo that was done in Chris's interrupt read me. Ben_-_Transmute: 43 transcriber failing I guess when we hit record sometimes the record doesn't start sometimes a transcriber doesn't start we go to menu and stop and start it independently of report instead of stopping the meeting was that how we address number three okay. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: It will fail for some people namely Ness and as far as I can tell nobody else that feels more can anyone confirm that it fails for them other than this. Chris_Abernethy: I've only seen it feel furnace. Orie Steele: Only seen a fail for this I've seen it misquote me and attribute hateful or inappropriate content to me when I speak and I dislike generally seeing it because I don't trust the notes and I think it's I think it's bad habits basically I prefer for it to be off. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: My preference is to is this in a similar vein but instead I would have a backup transcriber he just reads it and correct small things I think it's still easier to use it would someone going through it and checking rather than having someone transcribe everything. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: I don't know how the rest of the group feels. Orie Steele: Men generally in the w3c if it's a formal work item we don't use an AI transcriber we have someone described and it's part of engaging in the work and supporting work learning how to scribe and those sets of skills I think that's all valuable stuff for folks to learn. Chris_Abernethy: I have seen enough errors in the transcriber that I second that. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Do you want to take a vote. Ben_-_Transmute: Okay before we address that or do we want there's also Point number four on this issue of do we update people that Jason but that's I guess let's let's address the transcriber first. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Okay I'm going to put a proposal on the truck let me know if the wording is fine with everyone. Orie Steele: So don't vote at first just review the proposal and request any changes to it that you might have before we run it. Ben_-_Transmute: I'm expecting but we don't not want to. PROPOSAL: Stop using the automated Transcriber, instead assign a scribe at the start of the meeting Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Okay I hope that's not convoluted enough for you then but I'm doing. Orie Steele: Yeah I'm good with that proposal. Ben_-_Transmute: That's not very straightforward yes I'm okay. Orie Steele: +1 Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Okay so if no one has issues with this then let's run the proposal please plus 1 minus 1 and. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: -1 Mahmoud Alkhraishi: All right I think that's everyone unless. Orie Steele: Vivian Vivian didn't years. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: I think that's most people and I think I'm happy to let it go Vivian are you are you okay with going forward are you going to block the. Vivien: Yeah awesome okay going for just feel like manual transcribing just too much work but any help I'll go with the majority. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Fair enough I guess we're switching to the manual describing do you want to start it for the rest of this meeting or do you want to go starting from next. Orie Steele: I think next meetings probably best we should just make sure we update our process documents to describe you know how to start the meeting and I asked for a scribe I described plus all of the IRC instructions that you give in a formal working group like the w3c verify the credentials working group or the did working group like. Orie Steele: There's a set of. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: https://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html Orie Steele: Options we give to folks who are new to help them on those calls and also those calls tend to have more folks joining and we try and grow call participation so that the Scribe burden isn't isn't you know to too burdensome so I think the other side of this is like we should be looking to grow the call participation here and teaching people how to scribe and actually this is one of the reasons you might want to join a smaller group like this is. Orie Steele: I'll teach you how to you know how to handle things. Orie Steele: The w3c for. Orie Steele: That you can use those skills when you migrate to a formal working group in the future. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Yep I put a link. Chris_Abernethy: Is somebody on the call familiar with those procedures and will volunteer to create an issue. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Put a link to the w3c guide for it in chat. Chris_Abernethy: Ah I see it thank you I will. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Might be a good idea put down there with me. Chris_Abernethy: Yeah I will update the instructions for trace interop and then we can Cascade that into this ticket to copy those over to Grace vocab. Chris_Abernethy: So Benjamin do we want to make this ready for PR. Chris_Abernethy: Pull the instructions over for issue for 64. Ben_-_Transmute: Yes I would say ready for beer. Chris_Abernethy: Change the label now. Ben_-_Transmute: And then I guess does that also include the action item of updating the instructions to include descriptions for strikes. Chris_Abernethy: Yes let me leave a comment to that effect. Chris_Abernethy: Okay that has been commented. Ben_-_Transmute: I guess also for using a manual scribe does that mean we don't need to boot everyone out of the meeting when we're done. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: The recording is independent Of The Scribe. Ben_-_Transmute: Okay that's okay that's for the recording okay. Chris_Abernethy: Yeah the recording is a bit wonky if you forget to stop it or if you don't boot everyone it does it takes a long time for it to decide it's done and actually write the recording to disk. Ben_-_Transmute: Okay then to ask a quick stupid question all we need is an audio OGG for that so is it possible to make a local recording as a backup respect. Ben_-_Transmute: Not is it not as a practical but is it possible. Chris_Abernethy: I mean I think that anyone on the call could conceivably recorded as well I don't know how that fits in with. Chris_Abernethy: Earl procedures for this type of meeting. Ben_-_Transmute: Okay just double checking so let's send we haven't had too much problem with the audio .o G not working for us so let's just assume that it will continue to keep working for us unless it doesn't at least until it doesn't okay. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/160 Chris_Abernethy: That brings us to issue when 60 this is from Ted link is in the chat and it's related to updating the readme anyone comments on this. Chris_Abernethy: It's like the last commenter was you been. Ben_-_Transmute: Yeah I accept this is like half a year ago I'm not exactly sure so any changes the potential introduced break are not backwards capability functionality must have a corresponding issue and discussion require consensus from editors so. Orie Steele: So Ted objected to the idea that editors control work items his point was the w3c processes that editors Implement working group consensus this is a community group basically I don't agree with his position as I said several years ago it is the case that if ever you're disappointed in something someone in a community group is doing you can ask the community. Orie Steele: Group chairs to enter. Orie Steele: Or you can go to the formal Woodsman process at w3c if you're having a dispute with someone but I think this is basically Overkill and should be closed. Ben_-_Transmute: Okay I'm perfectly okay with Penny close on this. Chris_Abernethy: I will remove ready for PR and add pending clips. Chris_Abernethy: And I will add two notes. Chris_Abernethy: Okay the next issue is 1920 Russell I'll juice you're on. Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Yeah for the pull request 584 it I fix the Agricultural and the sanity test turned out to be an easy fix as well so if you wanted to merge that now that should be doable. Orie Steele: Thanks for pointing that out can we take another look at it can you refresh the link. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/584 Orie Steele: Try and merge anything we can. Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Oh I changed a bunch of other eggs to agriculture all while I was at it. Chris_Abernethy: I'm looking at the Justice now it looks like it ran all tests with passing results. Chris_Abernethy: Benjamin if you agree and can review remove your change request. Ben_-_Transmute: Yes yes I don't text it and I approved it. Chris_Abernethy: And I will merge 584 now. Orie Steele: Yes that's a big Improvement those little those little readability issues in a large number of schemas they matter a lot. Chris_Abernethy: Okay 584 has been merged and you said you also fixed 585 is that or that that was right sorry. Ben_-_Transmute: Look I found a small pull request 588 so that instead of just calling console.log it returns false for the just test. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/588/files Ben_-_Transmute: I don't know we work on do that now or if this is enough to satisfy the issue. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: I think we I think we might as well just so that we can get this out in as soon as possible. Ben_-_Transmute: Hopefully I can. Chris_Abernethy: Just to clarify will this cause CI to fail when. Orie Steele: That was my car. Ben_-_Transmute: Tight or go ahead. Orie Steele: That was my question it doesn't seem like it's exploding enough but maybe maybe just cause a CI to fail it just isn't obvious to me looking at the code that would. Ben_-_Transmute: Oh I'm under the sitting there is a loose this is running a promise that all where it returns true or false and then under that it says expect everything to be true so what's happening here is this just calling console are and then returning true and then yeah. Orie Steele: I expanded I think it's good I'm in favor of merging this immediately. Chris_Abernethy: Excellent I will if you prove that or E so we get that little green check I will merch. Ben_-_Transmute: Oh and before you merge let me leave the issue actually it we can like make the issue even after it gets merged. Orie Steele: Yes you can. Chris_Abernethy: Okay merging out. Chris_Abernethy: Okay any other PR changes to discuss before we return to issues. Ben_-_Transmute: Thanks for bringing that up or something. Ben_-_Transmute: I think they were using entity so potentially that but we can. Ben_-_Transmute: All in a transparent see what happens. Chris_Abernethy: And there isn't this just a few FYI there's a now I conflict on 585. Chris_Abernethy: Okay let's move on to issue this again. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/393 Chris_Abernethy: Next issue is 455 which is a pending closed issue. Chris_Abernethy: Regarding the traceable presentation example there are some question about or a whether or not you can curd at this was addressed by PR 458. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/458 Chris_Abernethy: I think that PR in the chat. Orie Steele: There's the pull request what's the issue though. Chris_Abernethy: Yes you is 455. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/455 Chris_Abernethy: Sorry grab that now. Orie Steele: There's no link in the chat to that that's the one I'm trying to all right update traceable presentation example right I remember looking at a pull request we discuss this what is it saying including example where the holder is an object so I'm just going to click the link and they'll example has a holder that's an object we're good I think we're. Orie Steele: Looks good to me any any anyone else think that. Orie Steele: I'm going to close it. Chris_Abernethy: In the princess simple 92 which is a proposal writing tagging structure moving schema objects. Chris_Abernethy: I'm already the scissors there's been some back and forth on this between you and Ben. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/192 Orie Steele: I think we implemented some version of this so we have folder structures now for schema objects my assertion is that this is working and there's no changes were expecting to make anyone think there's some proposal for future I think we employee did these things. Chris_Abernethy: Okay I will close unless I know in packs. Orie Steele: I closed it. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/416 Chris_Abernethy: 416 yeah sure. Orie Steele: So this would impact a lot of credentials it is basically to remove the confusion over the word certificate we've heard non-technical people or technical people be confused like why are you calling these things certificates We inherited that from the other vocabularies like the permanent resident card you know and actually a permanent resident card one is doesn't have. Orie Steele: That's it has a. Orie Steele: I think they use the credenza or credential so what we're trying to do is give an rdf type to the verifiable credential format that we support that's the objective and we want to group all the credentials together and we have that in the in the vocabulary today so when you look at the section of credentials you'll see a whole bunch of words with the word credential at the end instead of a whole bunch of words with. Orie Steele: The word certificate at the end so that kind of. Orie Steele: And I'm happy to change the word to whatever makes people happy just being aware that people will never actually be happy and probably want us to change the word again. Chris_Abernethy: Okay so listen Ben how do you. Chris_Abernethy: What are you hoping to you. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: I don't understand sorry can you repeat this. Ben_-_Transmute: My main concern here is just with renaming with respect to GitHub repos is that you're deleting one file and then you're creating a new file with a different name so my main concern is if there is other merge repressor open at the same time and we do this someone is gonna do a merge request with respect to the to the certificate postfix and then that's going to get deleted and. Ben_-_Transmute: With the old content of yeah. Orie Steele: Yeah I understand that the issue there is just basically one of how do you dress merge conflicts or when people are trying to make changes when you do a massive change set you tend to prefer the bias towards the massive change set since it's more work for that person than it would be for the other guy to redo their work so when if there's a pull request up we should say oh like let's merge that one first because that's the big one and it's going to be difficult. Orie Steele: What if we don't merge it. Ben_-_Transmute: Yeah I don't I don't think we need to merge it out and meeting specifically but I think we just want it when it does come up I think we should give it priority and that's just what an assist for me. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Yep I think we just give it a merge first tagging when the piers open and we're good. Chris_Abernethy: Okay and that is all I have time for one more. https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/217 Chris_Abernethy: The next issue is 217 idlers we need a road map mock moon this one is yours. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Let me just Refresh on this. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Yeah I don't think we ended up with. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Plan on how to do this but know what I was hoping for was a target of what we would need to cut our first release right and my plan for a roadmap wasn't a time-based one but rather a feature-based one where we can say this is the absolute minimum subset of things that we will need so that we can say we are ready to launch V1 of Trace vocab context right. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: And then obviously we're going to you know. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Further the lat I'm not sure how to tackle this I think Ben had a really good suggestion of splitting it by vertical of saying this is what I need for my vertical and this is what I have missing and you know once I have all these things in that I'm ready but you know I'm happy to hear any other suggestions if anyone. <nis> v1.0 Ben_-_Transmute: I think I listen in general I think that we need to have a fixed version one sometime hopefully before testing really commences because I don't think we're going to be taking Siri if if we have contacts and stuff that changes and breaks proofs you know as we work and I think that events you know we do want to have a certain list of things that says you know if we have if these conditions are met we can. Ben_-_Transmute: say version 1 is complete and we're not going to. Ben_-_Transmute: We're not going to touch it and then work it address further changes in conflicts and version 2 I'm not entirely sure that we would need at specific specifically need a perfect version 1 if we have schemas are defined and we have context of this to find and we have don't have any undefined terms I think we could Define a narrow list of criteria that would satisfy version 1. Chris_Abernethy: Okay so do we have an action that we can call out here. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: My suggestion as an action is for every vertical we list out what are the schemas that we believe we are missing that once we have these keema's we're ready for a V1 and then we take a look at that list of credentials which should help us identify commonalities and then a path to V 1 right I think if we try and approach it without that vertical level. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Another option is we can say per vendor each vendor goes in and says it but that's roughly the same thing and it's more exclusionary than saying / vertical right in my mind every we go / vertical and say this is these are all the credentials that I need to have lockdown for V1 and these are the ones that are not there yet and then from there we can take a look and we can you know but put it. Chris_Abernethy: That sounds good and that's about all we have time for today is anyone volunteer to post a meeting minutes for this week. Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): I can do that. Chris_Abernethy: Awesome thank you Russell and I believe you are in control of the meeting if you would stop recording and to kick everyone. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Kick everyone first and stop recording right. Chris_Abernethy: Everybody see you next week. Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Okay cool thank you everyone and have a great week.
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2022 18:42:13 UTC