W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > September 2022

[MINUTES] W3C CCG Traceability Call - 2022-09-13

From: CCG Minutes Bot <minutes@w3c-ccg.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 22:17:50 +0000
Message-ID: <E1oYEDz-00EqFO-Da@mimas.w3.org>
Thanks to Our Robot Overlords for scribing this week!

The transcript for the call is now available here:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2022-09-13/

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/2022-09-13/audio.ogg

----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifiable Traceability Task Force Transcript for 2022-09-13

Agenda:
  https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=%5BAGENDA&period_month=Sep&period_year=2022&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-credentials&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date
Organizer:
  Orie Steele, Mike Prorock, Mahmoud Alkhraishi
Scribe:
  Our Robot Overlords
Present:
  Russell Hofvendahl (mesur.io), TallTed // Ted Thibodeau (he/him) 
  (OpenLinkSw.com), nis, Orie Steele, Benjamin Collins, Chris 
  Abernethy

Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pulls
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/552
Orie Steele:  I think personally draft PRS are your way of 
  signaling you're not even really ready for a full review and you 
  do expect to eventually be ready and to eventually merge the 
  content if it's not one of those things is probably better to do 
  it on an issue and just discuss because the pr PR is are not a 
  great place to have really unbounded conversations they're 
  supposed to be.
Orie Steele:  Focus on the changes.
Orie Steele:  So what do you think the ETA is for getting it out 
  of draft status.
Benjamin_Collins: Yeah for me to get the draft the time spent and 
  drops to be like less than a week.
<orie> agree... drafts should not sit for more than 1 week
Benjamin_Collins: Like all all like my personal feeling about 
  about dresses like all set up a draft and if I'm ready to work on 
  something and then like I'll push commits to it and like I'm 
  looking at the draft and making sure the commit to work and 
  commit to make sense and then like once they make sense like 
  upgrading it to a whole PR like within an hour or within a week 
  like having having addressed here are longer for a week just 
  means that you're not ready for review or not really sure what 
  you're trying to do.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/557
Benjamin_Collins: Okay so I guess the three entrees woke up we're 
  going to be for me the first one up is contacts they say I went 
  through each one of those credentials and if we're declaring 
  contacts different in either way and different credentials than I 
  you know there's no reason to be doing that and so this is 
  basically just the way that we expected to be constant they spent 
  the default value speed the car.
Benjamin_Collins: And we expect the items to be of type string.
Benjamin_Collins: The reflexive Concepts.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/558
Benjamin_Collins: Okay so I see the suggestions from Ted and I 
  will committees but to provide some background on what these are 
  is this is the same thing standardization some our credentials 
  included name and description and some of them did not so what 
  this does is this goes through and centers I said to make sure 
  that we have the same couple of fields required across all of 
  our.
<orie> in favor of merging after suggestions are applied
Benjamin_Collins: I went ahead and committed those so I'll see 
  you guys going to run first.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/559
Benjamin_Collins: Yeah I think it should be able to wrote These 
  in a way that shouldn't have any conflict when they merged to try 
  and be safe.
Benjamin_Collins: But oh wait maybe to be 0 actually well 
  whatever if we have conflicts and I'll fix them offline and 
  they're just okay so the last one is credential subject it's some 
  of them some of the some of the Json schema we have just had an 
  arbitrary abstract type objects which is you can throw anything 
  in there and I don't think that's what we're trying to do in here 
  so anyways I saw that I prefer provided a spare specific.
Benjamin_Collins:  Json schema to provide for the credential.
Benjamin_Collins: So we can actually render forms from the types.
Benjamin_Collins: I can I convert once see I finish it.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pulls
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/380
Orie Steele:  So the conflict is in the postman collection Json 
  which is like yeah that's that's since it's sort of probably 
  mostly a generated artifact that people are exporting from a 
  postman client I would expect there to be a lot of conflicts for 
  that kind of thing and they were kind of annoying to fix because 
  you have to like import The Collection make changes in export it 
  and over it right to conflict.
Orie Steele:  There's a good chance that if Chris if the conflict 
  exists because there's already been a merge for that particular 
  collection that there won't be merge conflicts for a series of 
  his poles that are built on top of it so it's possible we might 
  proceed with other items.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/382
Orie Steele:  He needs to alter his code review in order to 
  process this so I would just I read his what he's saying seems to 
  make sense to me and it seems that the action should be to update 
  the schemas not to update embedded schemas in a postman 
  collection.
Orie Steele:  The change that doesn't include any changes other 
  than to the postman Json file.
Orie Steele:  So our we're looking at pull 382 the only file 
  you've changed as a postman Json collection not a mo file.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/390
Benjamin_Collins: Was this what the Saints effectively change 
  from did he did was in the.
Benjamin_Collins: Okay it looks like there's a conflict but this 
  is one of the things we were talking about.
Benjamin_Collins: I think we can we can discuss this on the call.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/391
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/392
Orie Steele:  That's okay concrete change requests on pull 
  requests is progress so.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/396
Orie Steele:  Yeah so there's a several confusions here and part 
  of it is my fault there's two endpoints in question there's the 
  credentials issue and point and then there's the credential 
  status update and point both of them are Exposed on the issuer 
  apis both of them take an argument in the post body that refers 
  to the credential status.
Orie Steele:  And therefore both of those points in our 
  traceability API profile thing have to be aligned with both of 
  those points in the VC API so I am the point that I'm making 
  about breaking changes is if we change any of the argument 
  structure in our test Suite to align with the VC API that is 
  going to break tests like immediately which.
Orie Steele:  We should make sure that we're really doing that 
  correctly and that the VCA the eye isn't the thing that want to 
  be changing because there's people somebody's going to chase that 
  breaking change on either side you know what I mean.
Orie Steele:  So I think the the request for this one and this 
  is.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/396
Orie Steele:  Whole 396 the credential status pull request is to 
  review the VC API endpoints to review the traceability API 
  endpoints to discover.
Orie Steele:  Shape that should be required and all agree to the 
  shape that should be required.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/399
Benjamin_Collins: I think this is also specifically what we 
  talked about earlier the right where we want to define the 
  relationship between did web and the serbs and point and have a 
  common understanding for that so I don't know if there's a way 
  for me to protect my approval on this one I think we should 
  probably make sure where we have the relationship between did web 
  and how the issue were or how the holder and how the verifier how 
  that relationship is.
Benjamin_Collins: Well for me I think we should have let me I 
  think we have a diagram and a couple of examples for if you're if 
  you're issuing an example where the domain for the did web 
  matches up with the domain for the service endpoint and in the 
  cases where also doesn't match up with the service endpoint and 
  you know this and and the basic discover around how that would 
  happen is you know do we need a separate endpoint.
Benjamin_Collins: Need a separate Secret.
Benjamin_Collins: The Tenon API.
Benjamin_Collins: Or can all that you understood from the context 
  of just as it was and how we structure these things.
Orie Steele:  Yeah I think this is a good opportunity to develop 
  a visual diagram that covers the space that the API intended 
  intends to support So if you're intending to host instances of 
  this API on a unique naked origin here's how that looks if you're 
  intending to host instances of this API multi-tenant using path 
  based routing for the tenants this is how.
Orie Steele:  Here's how they could be combined if you wanted to 
  start with one and then go to the other I think a clear picture 
  around that would really help with the discovery section of the 
  respect document so I think we should attribute a block a gating 
  factor to this issue to say that we've got a diagram in the 
  respect document that we agree to that covers the cases that were 
  interested in supporting.
Benjamin_Collins: Okay I just put something to that effect in 
  there.
Chris_Abernethy: I think so can you hear me now.
Chris_Abernethy: I apologize for that cause I had a appliance 
  installer coming at a address set.
Chris_Abernethy: I think so yeah I did add an additional comments 
  to the issue itself just asking for a little bit more 
  clarification there.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/issues/377
Chris_Abernethy: So then I guess my question is your to did that 
  Json that I'm representing their above the traceability API 
  service endpoint includes the organization in it so what exactly 
  does that mean should it not exclude that.
Chris_Abernethy: Right so that's that's the that's the example I 
  was working with and if you visit that that did not Json URL.
Chris_Abernethy:  you'll see.
Chris_Abernethy: The traceability API service endpoint actually 
  lists you know transmute IT industry / organization / org blah 
  blah blah okay so if that's an endpoint that's going to be used 
  as a URL for say presentations.
Orie Steele:  Yeah it will be for presentations because that's 
  the use case for this kind of discovery.
Chris_Abernethy: So you're going to be serving presentations at 
  one of our L and think identifiers at was a different base URL.
Orie Steele:  And this is just basically Legacy from the defined 
  Discovery text that's in the respect document today and at some 
  point something got disconnected between what the respect 
  document says and what we're all testing because the respect 
  document actually as far as I'm aware says every traceability and 
  point is available at the service endpoint described by the 
  traceability API which is clearly not correct like for it.
Orie Steele:   Social issue and.
Orie Steele:  Financial verify are not exposed at those 
  endpoints.
Chris_Abernethy: Got it so I think I think my primary disconnect 
  was not thinking that anybody would be splitting those to live at 
  different points in the the path.
Chris_Abernethy: Okay so I see the issue now if you need to 
  support that specific use case then I think I understand what the 
  problem is.
<orie> see also 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/blob/main/docs/discovery.md
Chris_Abernethy: Really I just was very confused.
Orie Steele:  Yeah and to be fair I think we are confused as well 
  these things are kind of evolving and when they change they don't 
  always change together and I think that they've changed several 
  times not together at this point.
Orie Steele: 
  https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-interop/draft/#api-spec
Orie Steele:  So we have seen we have two documents that we need 
  to be updating consistently and one of them probably needs to be 
  deleted and then we have interoperability tests that are supposed 
  to be testing the specification so I think.
Orie Steele:  The right way to tackle this kind of thing is to 
  update the specification first not the tests first make the spec 
  say what we wanted to say and we can review that in English 
  language and then after we've got that we should update the tests 
  and then that's going to result in a lot of breaking stuff and 
  that's okay and then we'll fix it and then the implementations 
  that are passing the tests will be conformed and with the suspect 
  but we should update the spec text on these eight.
Orie Steele:   Is API Discovery as the next step.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah I definitely plus 12 that and making sure 
  that we explicitly call out that the presentation stuff does not 
  necessarily live at the same place as say identifiers or 
  credentials issue etcetera.
Orie Steele:  Yeah I think there's like a whole bunch of reasons 
  why it is the way that it is but the main like core requirements 
  are if you have a decentralized in a fire you want to be able to 
  resolve it and present to it like in one kind of clean flow and 
  so that's why you would want those path based routing capability 
  on the endpoint that's in the service for that did.
Orie Steele:  So API conformance for hosts is not aware of Base 
  URLs that are multi-tenant support and that's kind of more 
  closely aligned to the API did actor example implementation and 
  the current interoperability tests that were all passing and so 
  there's just this one case where you feel this rough Edge and the 
  spa.
Orie Steele:  Clearly Define that rough Edge and it should work 
  for both like if I want to present to An Origin that should work 
  if I want to present to a path On An Origin that should work the 
  spec text should be very clear about how to do both.
Benjamin_Collins: I don't think it's ready for PR what's the 
  specific action.
Benjamin_Collins: Okay so the action to be taken as a for the 
  respect.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/451
Orie Steele:  I've seen it I think we should I just left a 
  comment on the issue but I think we should be surfacing warnings 
  consistently in the spec text so like you know we have that chart 
  that tells us which of our credentials schemas are the best 
  because they have the least undefined terms.
Orie Steele:   We should have something.
Orie Steele:  Like that for warnings like this like we should 
  just engineering this so that it's visible it's in our faces were 
  incentivized to fix it and then we should remove the warnings and 
  it's okay if warnings pop up and then they go away and they pop 
  up and then they go away that's all fine I think but it's right 
  now the problem is nobody sees the warnings and so nobody is 
  incentivized to fix them.
Orie Steele:  Yeah we could do that as well we could make the CI 
  actually error instead of worn but I think that's a bit 
  heavy-handed I think.
Benjamin_Collins: Black Market but I think specifically seems to 
  be happening in this case is one of the like one proofs aren't 
  broken like the CIA doesn't seem to be checking the Json schema 
  but when the proof is broken for some reason that seems to like 
  blow over and hit the Json schema Json schema errors which then 
  surface to the CIA so I think the what we want to do here is have 
  Jason seen schema errors always be checked with the sea-ice we're 
  not.
Benjamin_Collins:  pushing broken schemas do Trace okay.
Orie Steele:  Yeah that's that's that's right then like what 
  happens if we accidentally publish with over top of warnings like 
  this I think it just means that those credentials actually can't 
  be issue from that schemas that correct.
Benjamin_Collins: I think they can because as soon as will still 
  issue because the context is correct but we can't like the schema 
  itself is I mean on these will worthless yeah.
Orie Steele:  So that's the same thing [...] it's a I think the 
  rule for blocking the CI for the CI preventing merge should be if 
  this is merged will it break an application that pulls from the 
  latest and if that's true the see I should should defend us from 
  that and force the pull request submitter to fix the issue.
Benjamin_Collins: Okay alright so I would initially Mike this is 
  right for you.
Orie Steele:  Yeah the transcription service that we have here is 
  routinely routinely not correct.
Orie Steele:  Yeah the transcriber is completely unusable in the 
  software and I my preference would be that we take normal IRC 
  notes and Scribe and everyone gets that muscle it's a valuable 
  muscle to have if you're participating in the w3c I think Otto 
  transcriber is a terrible thing and I didn't say what it is 
  saying I'm saying.
<orie> Auto transcriber is incorrect... I never said anything 
  like what it is saying.
Benjamin_Collins: And like this since the test cover doesn't seem 
  to work for you anyways maybe maybe a sunny ascribed might be 
  become No.1 breakfast.
<orie> we should disable Transcriotion.
<orie> its broken.
<orie> and we need to stop trying to use it.
Benjamin_Collins: I would not enable Json schema check in 
  Seattle.
Benjamin_Collins: Nothing nothing broken like we have production 
  applications are depending on a usable Json schema so we don't 
  want to be pushing anything broken at any any broken schemas.
Benjamin_Collins: Well I think we can do it in a week terrible 
  way possible just like additional properties true and then it 
  sticks and then you know if that doesn't work for your use case 
  and you should come back and make it better.
Benjamin_Collins: I mostly want to take the path that gets us to 
  having you know see much action able to see I as fast as possible 
  so all that.
Benjamin_Collins: Yeah well I mean II can try and label it we can 
  like see how many errors there are we can try to break it down 
  and if it's insurmountable the or if it's like too much and we 
  can break it up but we should try to get to there as soon as 
  possible.
Orie Steele:  It's if it's a big wall that needs to be climbed 
  eventually it may only get taller if we don't start climbing it.
Orie Steele:  That's why we should surface them visually in the 
  report immediately and then you should make modifications to 
  block pull request from being merged if they're going to break 
  stuff as a second action.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/297
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/300
Benjamin_Collins: Yeah I think a lot of these get into like how 
  do you want the rdf three groups and I think.
Benjamin_Collins:  you know.
Benjamin_Collins: Hannah before we get to this point I you know 
  it seems like we definitely want to have placeholders that schema 
  died Orangeburg general terms and like I think in terms of 
  priority we want to have like very narrowly defined distance 
  schemas for each one of our requirements before we go and really 
  drill down on what terms we want for each one of them is that.
Benjamin_Collins: They would never run off that.
Orie Steele:  Yeah I think.
Orie Steele:  Gotten rid of all undefined terms will the next 
  thing will be we have defined terms but are they the good the 
  best terms there are we using a schema.org class where we should 
  be using a w3c cube class that gets very much into the world of 
  knowledge workers ontology mapping expertise and out of the world 
  of like a basic tests are passing which we're still failing it so 
  I mean I think these are great tickets to keep it.
Orie Steele:   Round because they're.
Orie Steele:  We should be making eventually but I don't know 
  that we're ready for them if we have undefined terms in our Jason 
  Aldean.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/304
Benjamin_Collins: I think I remember hearing about this like we 
  wanted to update country code to like a two or three unique 
  identifier and that's something we would have to do with a pull 
  request of schema.org and so.
Benjamin_Collins:  is that.
Benjamin_Collins: Really something that should be addressed by 
  doing it the artist given the word or is that something that can 
  be addressed by just using a different term.
Benjamin_Collins: As if there's some kind of wheat if we can use 
  the term like ISO 3166-1 it's like if there's an identifier that 
  does that instead of schema.org country then you know that I 
  think we can just sidestep this issue.
Benjamin_Collins: I mean you know what I'm told you that defines 
  you know defines that term and you know.
Benjamin_Collins: Because we don't really need to use your 
  schema.org if there's like a un ontology or if there's like a gs1 
  ontology or something else we could use.
Benjamin_Collins: That would solve this I think.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/306
Orie Steele:  So we've made some improvements on this like we 
  have charts for undefined terms we have the chord diagram for 
  relationships between terms the question is you know what are 
  these visuals that help us evaluate whether or not our schemas 
  are json-ld or already f is is of a higher quality or not so we 
  might want to consider some of the things.
Orie Steele:  Things that Vladimir was.
Orie Steele:  You know which ontologies are you based on like how 
  many of the Define terms really come from schema.org versus gs1 
  versus you know que UD T vs C fabric right so we might want to 
  surface those kinds of visuals and in a way that would indicate 
  or hint you know maybe this thing over here could use more 
  reputable term sources that kind of thing.
Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): I'm sorry but just doing minutes 
  entail.
Orie Steele:  It means following the instructions in the readme 
  and your long and it takes some practice and effort to do it.
Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Yeah although I haven't done this 
  before so okay so check out the video I guess.
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/tree/main/docs/weekly-minutes
Orie Steele:  If it would be possible for someone to pair with 
  him and help him through it I think that would be excellent.
Chris_Abernethy: I got it we can do it after this call Russell.
Orie Steele:  Well thank you Chris.
<orie> great work fam!
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2022 22:17:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 13 September 2022 22:17:52 UTC