[MINUTES] W3C CCG Traceability Call - 2023-04-25

Thanks to Our Robot Overlords and Benjamin Collins for scribing this week!

The transcript for the call is now available here:


Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio of the meeting is available at the following location:


Verifiable Traceability Task Force Transcript for 2023-04-25

  Orie Steele, Mike Prorock, Mahmoud Alkhraishi
  Our Robot Overlords and Benjamin Collins
  steven capell, Benjamin Collins, Mahmoud Alkhraishi, Nis 
  Jespersen , Orie Steele, TallTed // Ted Thibodeau (he/him) 
  (OpenLinkSw.com), Ted Thibodeau

Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
Benjamin Collins is scribing.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Welcome to th traceability call. In order to 
  participate you need the IPR agreement signed. Today we will be 
  doing trace-vocab. Do we have any announcements?
Nis Jespersen :  Should we welcome Steve on the call.
Steve: Hello, this is my first time on the call, we've been using 
  W3c standards, and this is my first time on the call
<orie> This is a community group call, not a formal working group 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Thanks for coming. We will start with PR's.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Orie Steele:  Version 1 of the verifiable credential technical 
  recommendation supported credential schema which allowed you to 
  describe the schema of the VC credential. There was never an 
  implementation of it. But people liked it. In our case we use it, 
  but didn't surface it. So I added this property to all of the 
Orie Steele:  This is what the PR doesn, it adds that property to 
  all of the examples. And to point out we do publish all of the 
  URL's. And I did test these in the V2 test. So the test for v2 
  should start passing as we see it's functioning as expected.
<nis> 🙏
Orie Steele:  Another issue with this is PR is it changes a lot 
  of credentials, so it's going to have a lot of merge conflicts if 
  it doesn't go through.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Does this unblock the 736 PR?
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Orie Steele:  I'll need to re-run the CI and if it runs into 
  problems i'll look into them
Nis Jespersen :  This gives a QoL pass on the Purchase Order 
  schema. I updated some of the terms, took out edge cases and made 
  more thing mandatory.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Orie Steele:  There are cases where you want to encode an image 
  in a verifiable credential. I think we want to have a credential 
  with this property for the sake of testing. In the case where you 
  have a link to an image, we don't want to load that image, 
  because it will show that credential is being viewed. So we want 
  to have a credential with an embedded image for testing purposes.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Nis Jespersen :  Similar to what we looked at on the purchase 
  order. We did the mill test report  a few years back, so I looked 
  at what does a generic and user friendly mill test report look 
  like? I did some de-normalization where I added classes for 
  Chemical Composition and Mechanical properties.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  My feedback is that Chemical Composition is 
  generic, I though we could use that for oil. But it looks like 
  it's steel specific.
Orie Steele:  In the first pass of the mill test report, we made 
  it generic, but that made the experience poor. We had an array, 
  which made data entry hard. So we wanted to have more concrete 
  fields to get better feedback about what's required and what's 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  My feedback would be to move Chemical 
  Composition from a generic to a steel specific case.
Orie Steele:  I think we're blocked by the schema, not by the 
  terms, so i think we can have @vocab handle the terms, not define 
  a new RDF class here.
Nis Jespersen :  Let me confirm what the ask is here. I want to 
  move ChemicalComposition to Steel Checmical Composition?
Orie Steele:  I think that we want to have only inlined fields in 
  this PR. I can't make a change request since this was originally 
  my PR.
Ted Thibodeau:  If you look at the changed files, should still 
  see the blue checkmark button to make comments.
Orie Steele:  It won't let me request changes, but it will let me 
  leave a comment. I'll leave a comment saying requesting changes.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Orie Steele:  Is this the title casing issue. One of our 
  engineers opened this. There was coordination issues. This should 
  be closed.
Nis Jespersen :  Am I asking too much if I say, can I inline and 
  then merge out of bound?
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  I think it should be okay, ping me and I'll 
  do a quick review.
Orie Steele:  I don't think it should be too bad unless you're 
  issuing MTR's.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  We're not, but I want to give it a pass over 
  to confirm the structure. So I'll say it's okay to merge out of 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  We have no open PR's on trace-interop. 
  Before we review issues do we have any specific issues we want to 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  This one has no assignee and it's pending 
Orie Steele:  My thinking is there is something valuable here, 
  but we're not communicating it effectively. With linked data 
  there is an ontology that people like, and that people don't 
  like. So it's a matter of how we address it.
Orie Steele:  The issue here is you can optimize for RDF or you 
  can focus on the schema experience. And now we're focused on the 
  data model.
Mahmoud; I don't see how this would apply to oil. So i really 
  don't see how I could be using this. A lot of these values are 
  hardness or tensile tests. These seem to apply more to steel than 
  to oil. And I personally don't see any use cases where we would 
  use it. If someone wants to invest the time into it, then i'm 
  willing to leave it open.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  If anyone is willing to take it as an action 
  item then we can keep it open, otherwise i think we need to close 
Orie Steele:  I agree with your suggestion.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
<orie> Sry I will need to drop
<nis> Gotta drop
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  For this issue, we want to have a roadmap. 
  it's been open for we made some step.
Steve: We've starting a phase 2 of a traceability, and we're 
  talking about using the UN Vocabulary and wanted to ask. And 
  collect thoughts about where the vocabulary lives. And if a UN 
  picks it up, are there any governance issues?
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  The question about the roadmap for changing 
  governance, i do know we using existing authoritative sources 
  such as the UN. on the IP note, I think you have a better 
  knowledge of this than I do, as far as I know I don't think we 
  have any restrictions.
Steven: Taking this and contributing this to the UN, what would 
  happen if we were to re-use these at the UN?
Ted Thibodeau:  Do you need to re-publish them in order to re-sue 
Steve: No we don't need to re-publish them, but our constituents 
  care about the governance.
Ted Thibodeau:  We are a community group in the W3c, and the 
  documents we create are a report, when it is done, the next 
  process it to pass it to a working group which as a few year 
  span. To make sure that everything is polished and that becomes a 
  TR which patent free and royalty free. There is a lesser IPR for 
  the community group process. I don't have the legal knowledge to 
  make a definitive statement, but it's avaialble.
Steve: From an observer, there's good work here. From nation 
  states, we like to have definitive.
Ted Thibodeau:  Part of why things are developed in the W3C and 
  not ISO is the dollars installed. For ISO there is a cost 
  associated with anything including being able read it. With the 
  W3C  the idea is that everything is provided without a paywall.
Steve: I agree, we like open standards, where IPR is owned by the 
  UN but made available with no limitations. I'm coming at it from 
  who is the policy maker for which rules you can use.
Steve: You could easily have a much better quality vocab than the 
  UN, it's a matter of who is endorsing it.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  To answer you specifically there is no plan 
  to change the governance. For republishing, we can't answer that. 
  If you reach out to the chairs of the CCG they should be able to 
  answer that.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  We can add the question on the issue.
Benjamin Collins:  The scope of this issue is we've been hearing 
  that people want to use it, but it's a moving target, so at what 
  point can we communicate that everything is locked down and we're 
  not planning on making any more changes.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  For us we want to have our schemas locked 
  down by June. But for each vertical where we want to get 
  commitments and lock down.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Also with the context changes to the 
  verifiable credentials V2, this could affect us as well. We could 
  see that once the is locked down, we will want to take that into 
Benjamin Collins:  Yes, depending on where and how we ship this, 
  we we will make different decisions.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Are there any requirements to start locking 
  down a version? If we get to the point where we need to have a 
  lot of changes. We could say, what is the first date where we 
  need to cut a version, and then what do we need to get to that 
Ted Thibodeau:  That seems like a valid plan, I don't have any 
  details on those dates.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  I'll cc Mike and Orie where we could have 
  internal dates.

Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2023 18:29:23 UTC