[MINUTES] W3C CCG CCG Verifiable Credentials for Education Task Force Call - 2024-07-01

Thanks to Our Robot Overlords 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:


A video recording is also available at:


VC for Education Task Force Transcript for 2024-07-01

  Kerri Lemoie, Simone Ravaioli, Dmitri Zagidulin
  Our Robot Overlords
  Simone Ravaoli, Ildiko Mazar, Nate Otto, Hiroyuki Sano, Japan, 
  PL/T3, Sharon Leu, Stuart Freeman, Susan Stroud, Andy Griebel, 
  TallTed // Ted Thibodeau (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com), Alex H, Keith 
  Hackett, Deb Everhart, Timg, Naomi, Nis Jespersen , Michal 
  Jarmolkowicz, Eric Shepherd, TimG

<simone_ravaioli> we will start officially in a couple of 
  minutes... hello folks !
Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
<simone_ravaioli> Good morning, good afternoon everyone, welcome 
  to today's W3C Verifiable Credentials for Education task force 
  call, on Monday, July the 1st. Let's get started with the 
  housekeeping items. IP Note: Anyone can participate in these 
  calls. However, all substantive contributions to any Credentials 
  Community Group Work Items must originate from members of the CCG 
  with full IPR agreements signed. You can find the link to this in 
  the meeting invites. You'll need to have a W3C account, that is 
  also something easy to do online. Moving on to call notes. Please 
  note that these meetings are recorded. We have a robot 
  transcriber and we also make audio and video recordings, that are 
  archived and available online. If you want to speak, please raise 
  your hand, or add yourself to the queue by typing “q+” in the 
  chat. And please be brief if you have a question to ask, we want 
  to maximise the time for conversations. Thank you. Now to 
  Introductions & Reintroductions. If we have any new people in the 
  call, or somebody would like to reintroduce themselves, please 
  feel free to take the floor. If nobody wants to take the floor, 
  we can move on to announcements and reminders. Anyone has events 
  or things that happened that people should be aware of, again, 
  please queue yourself up and share the news with us. Now to the 
  main agenda topic, from Nate Otto about Open Badges 3.0.
<nate_otto> Hope to see many of your at thebadgesummit.com in 
  Boulder (colocated with the T3 Network Mid-Year Meeting!)
<ildiko_mazar> You are also invited to propose contributions to 
  future VC Edu Task Force calls.
Nate Otto:  Great well thank you for the introduction or the 
  invitation to join here and if you uh may allow me I'll give a 
  brief introduction to myself first although I do know most of the 
  folks on the call and then I'd love to dive into that.
Nate Otto:  Okay so uh thank you so much uh I'm Nate Otto I have 
  been working in the open beds filled since 2012 um although my 
  early involvement there was uh as a volunteer uh joining the 
  community calls uh on the side of my job that had nothing to do 
  with technology.
Nate Otto:  Went to the um.
Nate Otto:   The Mozilla.
<simone_ravaioli> If you have questions, feel free to add them 
  here in the chat as well.
Nate Otto:  Employee Summit in 2013 and then Mozilla Festival in 
  London uh 2013 and 2014 and got my first job at Indiana 
  University working directly with digital badges uh from a posting 
  on the the original open badges mailing list maintained by 
  Mozilla I worked for a year with Dr Dan hickey at Indiana 
  University on uh the design principles documentation project 
  where we studied 30 grant winners of um MacArthur's DML for 
  competition as they were on their journey of implementing the the 
  new open badges technology um I was later than asked to um become 
  interim director of the.
Nate Otto:  Badge Alliance um which was the interim organization 
  that Mozilla spun up to start bringing the open badges movement 
  to a broader audience Beyond just those who are involved with 
  Mozilla um.
Nate Otto:  In 2015 I worked um with um Carrie lamoy and others 
  on the open badges uh 1.1 um implementation was the first time we 
  added Json LD into the spec.
Nate Otto:  Then um helped Shepherd open badges specification 
  into the um what was then the IMs Global standards body.
Nate Otto:   Uh now.
Nate Otto:  Which is the standards body for um the open badges 
  credential type today and I've been contributing to that standard 
  um there since then and in the meantime I was also um leading 
  product development at uh concentric sky on the badger product um 
  from 2014 to 2022 uh and grew that team from just myself up to 54 
  people before it was acquired by instructure where it now is the 
<simone_ravaioli> I might prompt everyone on the call here to 
  think about 1 question about OB3 you might have had on your mind. 
   Add to chat, thanks.
Nate Otto:  Canvas credentials product um at in structure so I've 
  had some amount of experience with open badges mostly on the 
  technical side and I'm really excited that we are now at a final 
  release of the open badges 3.0 version um I contributed to the um 
  proposal to launch that phase um at the 1 at Tech work group um 
  with a long and Cary Loy and um we just got through the voting 
  process in June and it was launched as a final version of the 
  spec ready to use fully compatible with um verifiable credentials 
  1.1 and uh 2.0 so um my expertise here is mostly on the um the 
  technical side but also with a Keen Eye toward product 
  development and how an ecosystem of decentralized interoperable 
  products can grow up around uh this open data standard um and to 
  some nice question what are the most frequently questions asked 
  questions about open badges 3.0 I'd start us off with um a 
Nate Otto:   Are people.
Nate Otto:  Asked all the time how do we get started with this uh 
  the hype is real people see a lot of really cool use cases in 
  education particularly um for verifiable credentials open badges 
  is a great um flexible credential type that offers support for a 
  whole lot of different uh learning claims that you might make and 
  so people are excited about it they want to know like how do we 
  get started what are the products that are available on the 
  market that can issue this uh credential type and then they are 
  advocating on behalf of their users and wondering what can you do 
  with badges uh with these credentials once you've got them um do 
  they get accepted as part of job applications what do employers 
  think of them are they integrated with uh employment uh applicant 
  tracking systems and HR information systems for in for instance.
Nate Otto:  And the answer is to a lot of these questions are 
  that it's pretty early days within this um version of the spec 
  and even open badges 2.0 the non-verbal credentials uh compatible 
  version that came before uh there was a lot of implementation on 
  the issuer side but not a huge amount of implementation on the 
  consumption side so my recent focus in open badges has really 
  been to try and push development towards the consumption 
  verifying side for these credentials and to put them in products 
  where they can actually become meaningful and um start providing 
  real value for users rather than just being a digital token 
  that's fun to look at nice visual symbol of achievement.
Nate Otto:  Yeah that that's that's an interesting Dynamic uh to 
  be in in a market where there is demand for your product and you 
  know there's like large institutions that are seeking Solutions 
  there's large advertising budgets uh among some of the the 
  products that are on the market but there's not a huge um.
Nate Otto:   You know.
Nate Otto:  Is not super well educated as to like what are the 
  actual capabilities are and so there is a little bit of like a 
  hype cycle dynamic um that happens in this space people are 
  excited about the use cases they hear some big statements saying 
  this is really useful for hiring you can represent all kinds of 
  things with it and they you know fit their own imagination and 
  their own use cases into these capabilities um they see oh yeah I 
  want to recognize skills I want to recognize competencies.
Nate Otto:  Um and I you know I think you can see a lot of the 
  need for open badges in your own life and in the communities that 
  you participate in um you can see that our communities could be 
  better if we could better understand what the employment growth 
  pathways are that go through them you know what are the roles 
  here what skills are associated with those roles what learning 
  opportunities can we access that would recognize those skills and 
  the open badges uh credential type.
Nate Otto:  Into a lot of those uh those stories you can see like 
  oh yeah if only we had some badges that were um able to recognize 
  the skills that were aligned to the same.
Nate Otto:   You know.
<naomi> That's a GREAT question... I'd like to offer some of the 
  "why's" in a future session... we're seeing some really 
  interesting applications and tangible benefits within Velocity 
  Network. !!!
Nate Otto:  The jobs that people are looking for then people 
  could see what the progression was between job a and job B and 
  they could see where they could go get um education in order to 
  be able to qualify for those jobs and so I think the power of the 
  use cases is what's really driving the um excitement and now it's 
  up to us as people who are implementing this technology to bring 
  the products and to bring the ecosystem um to the level where 
  it's really delivering on those use cases end to end providing 
  value um for those users in the ways that they're excited about.
<simone_ravaioli> ask Sharon_Leu
Sharon Leu:  Hi um I'm really excited for this AMA so I I think 
  that like sort of bridging Bridging the old and the new is um 
  something that I have a question about um both for not just like 
  the like sort of like the why should we do this but the 
  technically of the house and I'm a little bit curious like what 
  is the plan sort of moving forward on um you know whether version 
  3 is compatible with um bcdm version 2 or any future versions 
  like what is like the workflow for making sure that um the open 
  badges um specification remains compatible with the verifiable 
  credentials um data model as it becomes like updated in the 
  future and then sort of like reaching to the Past I'm a little 
  bit curious about um like you know like the badge connect API 
  versus like BC API and like ways like if you're already issuing 
  open batch version 2.
Sharon Leu:   To become a.
Nate Otto:  Thank you Sharon great cluster of questions there uh 
  let me tackle the sort of future looking ones first and then I'll 
  um switch my my focus and kind of look back at at this version 
  transition that we've made between major version 2 and major 
  version 3 so looking ahead open badges is now a credential type 
  that's compatible with verifiable credentials that will continue 
  to be the case uh the the work group has done.
Nate Otto:  The the work that they needed to to make it so that 
  the open badges schema is compatible with both both VC 1.1 and VC 
  2.0 and if there is a a VC 3.0 the structure changes at some 
  point in the future then um I would fully expect that the um the 
  1 at Tech group would make a necessary update to open badges so 
  that you can express um the claims that you can make with open 
  badges in whatever verifiable credential wrapper format that 
  there is um a great example of how we're doing this recently um 
  right before the finalization of of this new version open badges 
  3.0 we um.
Nate Otto:  The uh various different pieces of the verifiable 
  credentials data model and how we can make sure to stay as 
  interoperable with the different choices that different 
  implementation communities would be making as possible so we 
  relaxed a few of the initial drafted um schema requirements in 
  open Mages to make sure that um organizations that were 
  implementing with verifiable credentials in ways that we hadn't 
  quite foreseen would still be able to use more or less the full 
  power of the verifiable credentials data model which means 
  flexibility for um adding additional credential schema entries 
  different evidence types different signature types and did types 
  and um.
Nate Otto:   And all.
Nate Otto:  Like layers that you can plug in um we want to make 
  it so that there is some pretty strong compatibility across the 
  implementers in the ecosystem.
Nate Otto:  Also um enable the ecosystem to grow and to continue 
  to be able to choose open badges as a um a schema for how to make 
  learning claims about the types of things that open badges can 
  cover you know everything from degrees down to competency 
  recognition to attendance Badges and and participation and and 
  peer endorsement.
Nate Otto:  Um so I think these these Technologies are together 
  now um open badges has really found its Niche within the 
  verifiable credentials data model it's a credential type you know 
  the open values of community is not too particular about which 
  cryptographic signature proof types should be used um Etc other 
  than to try and push common implementers toward um implementing 
  common solutions for compatibility we really want to make sure 
  the badges that are issued can flow to where they need to go um 
  but beyond that um a lot of the other layers of the text stack 
  are in great hands uh in the the w3c and um in the various 
  different parts of the credentials community group that are 
  drafting new uh cool capabilities that we might be able to um put 
  into Market.
<ildiko_mazar> @Nate, do you know how many/what proportion of OB 
  issuers reference skills in the badge metadata from skill or 
  competence frameworks (as opposed to using free text 
Nate Otto:  Sharon do you have any uh reaction or or anything 
  there um before I jump to kind of look at back at the past.
Sharon Leu:  Um no that's cool so what I'm hearing you say is 
  that there's actually ongoing work um at 1 and Tech on um sort of 
  updating and refining the standards so that it always remains 
  consistent is that right.
Nate Otto:  Yeah absolutely and so uh I can go into a tiny bit 
  more kind of on that which is that there is this uh 18-month 
  cooling cycle at 1 Ed Tech before we can produce a new version of 
  open badges but certain changes are Exempted from that so um we 
  want there to be some stability in the market so we're not going 
  to do a new revision right away um but when a new did method 
  comes along or a new um proof type that we want to take a look at 
  um the work group can add those as an additional recommendation 
  of something that could be used um in a fairly lightweight Manner 
  and so the work group will continue its work meeting twice a 
Nate Otto:  To discuss you know what are the use cases that are 
  out there that we're seeing in the implementation landscape and 
  to be able to make that type of small adjustments.
Sharon Leu:  Cool and is there a way that um you know other 
  people from the outside can be observers of that process just to 
  you know see what you all are up to other than you know sort of 
  like inviting you for an AMA every now and again.
Nate Otto:  Well I I do appreciate the invitation to join for an 
  AMA uh and there are a number of other members of the the work 
  group who are on these these calls regularly so there is a lot of 
  information sharing so I wanted Tech is a member organization and 
  um most of the official deliberations are members-only voting as 
  member is only for instance however we have um.
Nate Otto:  This community opened Badgers Community has advocated 
  for very long time that the work on open badges should be done in 
  the public and so our GitHub repository um for the open badges 
  specification is a public repository and issues are discussed 
  their poll requests are discussed there so you can follow along 
  the actual issues and pull requests and anyone may open an issue 
  um or comment on an issue so a lot of the the actual nitty-gritty 
  work does have that Avenue of of visibility and then in addition 
  there are some conferences um wanted to take puts on um a number 
  of them they had they just got through the learning impact 
  Conference in June and then um the big 1 for digital credentials 
  every year is their digital credentials Summit which next year 
  will be in Phoenix I think in March.
Nate Otto:  Cool well thanks for the question let me let me get 
  to the other half of your question which is um.
Nate Otto: 
Nate Otto:  Happens for open badges 2.0 issuers um previously 
  what do they do we actually have a section of the open badges 
  implementation guide that.
Nate Otto:  Covers a handful of scenarios for what such an issue 
  or could do and the Crux of the difference is that open badges 
  2.0 largely relied on a phone home approach where the issuer 
  would host a verification file on their own website and that URL 
  of that file would which was the up-to-date version of the 
  credential would be um included in the credential and then a 
  verifier the instructions were instead of verifying a signature 
  you just throw away everything else you have go fetch that the 
  URL to the thing and that is the canonical copy of the um the 
  credential and so if it was revoked he'll be able to see that if 
  it um had changed uh since it was originally issued um you you 
  would be able to see that as well.
Nate Otto:  Bad is 3.0 largely we're uses the um cryptographic 
  proofs that are familiar to verifiable credentials.
Nate Otto:  And um that is a very different model because it's 
  not just built in that you have the revocation checking and the 
  status checking um but also that there's a lot of issued badges 
  there's millions of issued open badges in those 2.0 formats 
  largely held within um a small number of software platforms that 
  implemented them and I think the that they can continue to 
  coexist that the the open badge is 2.0 and 3.0 versions can be 
  considered 2 different serialized of the same achievement and 
  there will be some products that don't yet support 3.0 for a 
  little while uh yet so in some cases you may still want to like 
  share and download the the 2.0 version um and then for newer 
  wallets and use cases you can get the 3.0 version but the Crux of 
  what makes it possible for you to do both these versions together 
  is that sharing by URL is going to continue to be a really.
Nate Otto:   Important use case.
Nate Otto:  Open badges when you want to share a credential to 
  your LinkedIn profile to show a qualification that you have or 
  some experience that you have um.
Nate Otto:  Pretty much the only thing LinkedIn can accept 
  besides a few metadata Fields within what they call 
  certifications is a URL and there's no way to put a cryptographic 
  signature into LinkedIn you have to have this URL to share and so 
  because open badge is 2.0 is built on your url based sharing um 
  you can build an experience where you still implement the URL 
  based sharing um in 2.0 formats and probably also have your open 
  graph tags on there to make it really easy for for um social 
  platform Bots to get a sense of what the content is and render a 
  preview card and then you can also deliver the 3.0 credential uh 
  maybe downloaded to a user's wallet um in the new format for when 
  they need it so we have a guide specifically on how you could do 
  that at a technical level built into the implementation guide.
Nate Otto:   And then there.
Nate Otto:  A couple other little.
Nate Otto:  Tidbits to your question asked about the the badge 
  connect API um which is a server to server method of uh 
  transmitting badges from issuers to um hosts was the term in that 
  API um also kind of thought of as a backpack or a wallet um and 
  then from those hosts out to verifiers using an ooth based um 
  authorization code redirect Grant structures the users in the 
  browser authorizing a connection and then once they've done so 
  those 2 servers can talk to each other on behalf of the user 
  until in the future even if the user is not there so like if a 
  new credentials awarded the issuer can to throw it right over 
  into the um the house without the user um showing up in the 
  browser to click buttons and accept it there is another version 
  of this API brought forward in the open badge is 3.0 and so it's 
  basically the same thing but uses the 3.04 formats instead of the 
  2.0 formats and so um we will see as far as what protocols open 
Nate Otto:  To send the the badges around I'm building a product 
  myself the open source Orca platform that so far has implemented 
  chappie to um send credentials to same device wallets for users 
  in browsers but I'm also implementing the open badges 3.0 API um 
  so that um Learners can say where they want their credentials to 
  go authorize that flow and then it just happens in the background 
  automatically on their behalf.
Nate Otto:  So we'll see how how the implementation landscape 
  lines up and and which um options uh people choose their.
<sharon_leu> Thanks!
Nate Otto:  That's a really good question um skill and competency 
  recognition is 1 of the key use cases for open Badges and um open 
  badges has the capability to align to a skill um particularly 
  those that are identified by URL within a competency framework so 
  for example if there's a um a competency framework that is 
  published to the credential engine registry and each of the items 
  within it has a unique URL a badge could align to that URL and 
  say hey this badge this is achievement completes that uh 
Nate Otto:  I don't have.
Nate Otto:  On how much this is used and it really varies widely 
  by issuers um there are some issuers like Western Governors 
  University that has awarded um.
<sharon_leu> @ildiko I think it's not only an issuer issue, since 
  the relying parties
Nate Otto:  Me tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of 
  credentials and each of them aligns to a large number of skills 
  and then there are um a large number of longtail issuers that um 
  aligned to you know 1 skill or don't align to um a skill URL at 
  all and then there are a number of issuers that they don't have a 
  a competency framework with URLs so there's nothing out there 
  beyond the badge to align to but the badge itself represents a 
  skill or a competency and that's another use case covered by open 
  badges um but it's a little bit hard to get um hard data on this 
  um instantly I think that as that ecosystem develops we will 
  start to get better data about what achievements are in use which 
  issuers are awarding them uh and the you know the prevalence of 
  different choices around the the metadata um partly just because 
  we absolutely need to build services that can answer those 
  questions for the the basic trust model um.
Nate Otto:  Because there's a lot of issuers out there tens or 
  hundreds of thousands of different issuers that could be using 
  open badges most consumers will not know which issuer they are 
  going to receive badges from when they you know a new job 
  applicant walks in the door to share them and so we will need 
  services that help verifiers such as employers make sense of the 
  badges that they're being present.
Nate Otto:  Um and that means having services that answer 
  questions about like what achievements are out there which 
  issuers are out there and which is issuers our trusted to issue 
  like achievements for which skills.
Nate Otto:  Do you have a follow-up.
Nate Otto:  Yeah and I I think um largely.
Nate Otto:  I mean first of all we do see a lot of skill and 
  competency badges it's 1 of the core use cases and so that that's 
  1 of the most important things that we we have but in this stage 
  of the ecosystem most badges that get awarded.
Nate Otto:   Sort of.
Nate Otto:  Tell tell a story of an accomplishment and that their 
  intended for human eyeballs and the aura screen reader and a 
  human brain to make sense of.
Nate Otto:  As we advance our.
Nate Otto:  Addresses and the maturity of the ecosystem grows 
  we'll start having more capabilities for kind of machines to act 
  on badges um automatically and to be able to do things but right 
  now um these are great storytelling tools for expressing skills 
  and competencies and uh you'll kind of like know the quality of 
  it when you see the the badge come across your desk and it'll be 
  accompanied by say a job applicant so they'll say hey here's the 
Nate Otto:   Here's the.
Nate Otto:  In my previous experience and here's why it matters 
  and how it applies to how I would um work in this new position 
  and that's like exactly the same type of thing that people are 
  doing with cover letters and resumes for uh many years.
Nate Otto:  So it's not.
<deb_everhart_(credential_engine)> Credential Engine is seeking 
  data sets from badge platforms for analysis in the next version 
  of our Counting Credentials  report, to analyze the data for 
  better clarity around credential types and skills included
Nate Otto:  Good question okay so alignment um the concept of 
  here's an external thing identified by URL that this achievement 
  aligns to it's basically unchanged from open badges I think 1.0 
  was sort of when we we implemented it originally back in like 
  2013 um the idea is that there's a URL to a thing it we have a 
  name and a description and maybe a name of the framework that 
  it's within we've had uh 1 new.
Nate Otto:  Option which is really cool in 3.0 though we have the 
  alignment Target type we can tell you now in the badge what is 
  the type of the thing on the other end of the the URL here is it 
  a competency or is it um something else and I can uh look up you 
  know what those what those alignment types are in in the spec 
  there's a whole bunch of different um like 20 uh different types 
  of things that might be on the other end of the alignment.
Nate Otto:  What was the other half of your question.
Nate Otto:  Yeah yeah so um let me offer 2 illustrations um the 
  first category of things that has largely changed in data 
  elements is that open badges 3.0 is a lot richer and Fuller 
  there's a lot more optional stuff that you can put in there than 
  there was in open badges 2.0 and largely these fields came from 
  um 1 Ed texts other related digital credentials spec uh the 
  comprehensive learner record.
Nate Otto:  CLR offered a bunch of different data fields about 
  like what an achievement meant and um 1 of them is this.
Nate Otto:  Concept that there might be a rubric associated with 
  an achievement and this is um implemented in the concept of a 
  result description in open badges 3.0 and CLR 2.0.
Nate Otto:  Which have a shared data model.
Nate Otto:  That's the other element of this uh is that we're not 
  only bringing open Badges and verifiable credentials together 
  we're bringing open Badges and CLR together into a common data 
  model it's a nice cluster of stuff but there's this concept 
  called a result description which could include a rubric could 
  include a description that says hey this is a scored assignment 
  and the scores range from zero to 100 and then within the 
  credential there is a result against that result description so 
  the result description says maximum score is 100 and then the 
  results says you got a 85.
Nate Otto:   It's not.
Nate Otto:  Put a grade directly in achievement sometimes there's 
  um privacy rules that govern how you can include that information 
  or not um but the capabilities there and so that first example 
  categories there's a lot of expanded um data elements a bunch 
  more stuff that you can say about the achievement another example 
  there is achievement type uh where you can say that oh this is a 
  competency or this is a degree this is a course completion or a 
  participation um badge you can more explicitly say in a um 
  Regular controlled vocabulary uh which of several types or 
  extensions um the the achievement represents the second major 
  data model change is that.
Nate Otto:  Now with the definer of the achievement.
Nate Otto:  Is no longer the only party that might be able to 
  recognize it uh in open badges 2.0 the way that the the 
  structures were related there was a Structure called the 
  assertion and then that linked to the badge class which we now 
  call achievement and then the badge class linked to the issuer 
  there was not a direct link between the assertion and the the 
  issuer of it but now in verifiable credentials um the credential 
  goes straight to the issuer it says who is my issuer and then 
  also through credential subject it's what claim is this issue 
  we're making an open badges the core claim is that the subject 
  has met the criteria of an achievement and now the definition of 
  who created that achievement and who is making this claim the 
  possibility opens that these might be different entities.
Nate Otto:  What it actually means in practice uh for someone to 
  process a credential that has a difference there is much more of 
  an open question and so some of my um ongoing work uh with the 
  bit of trust organization is around answering like what are the 
  real use cases for when we Define.
Nate Otto:  Achievements that are possible to be issued by other 
  issuers when do we want to say that they're not possible to be 
  issued by other issuers and uh you know how might we we actually 
  like shuttle all the information to the verifier so that they can 
  decide in the case of 1 of these mismatches is it permissible for 
  this particular credential issuer to recognize achievement of the 
  achievement that is defined here.
Deb_Everhart_(Credential_Engine): Hey Nate thank you so much for 
  all your work on this front um and a lot of that uh better 
  Clarity um that you're describing in terms of the data structure 
  that can be in ob3 and CLR 2 is thanks to the efforts of um.
Deb_Everhart_(Credential_Engine): Nate and Carrie and and a bunch 
  of people are who are also on this call to get that in there 
  thank you for including CDL in that structure and.
Deb_Everhart_(Credential_Engine):  I just.
Deb_Everhart_(Credential_Engine): I put a note in the chat but 
  it's a ways back so I'll just restate it um 1 of the things that 
  credential engine is aiming to do if we can get the data we need 
  is to bring better Clarity to badges that are in the field the 
  badges that don't have all that rich data that can be expressed 
  in CLR.
Deb_Everhart_(Credential_Engine): I'm sorry an ob3 CLR 2.
Deb_Everhart_(Credential_Engine): As part of our next counting 
  credential report 1 of the things we're seeking is badge sets not 
  any personally identifiable information um but the badge classes 
  from badge platforms so that we can um use some tools to analyze 
  those to see how we can determine what data is inside not on a 
  badge by badge um basis but in aggregate to give is all a better 
  sense of the field and this kind of usage and you know 1 of the 
  incentives for the badge platforms to do that is that we'll share 
  back everything we can including the tools for an instructions 
  for how we did that if they want to take it even further.
Deb_Everhart_(Credential_Engine): So I just wanted to put that 
  out there as um an effort for better Clarity and a request if you 
  know any badge platform providers or badge data sets that we 
  could be working with.
Nate Otto:  Great yeah thanks for plugging the good work um it's 
  worth noting that you can extend any open bad achievement with 
  additional CDL data if you would like and um yeah plus 1 to 
  reporting data for the counting credentials report and generally 
  publishing your achievements to the credential registry is a 
  great place to share information about the credentials that are 
  issued by various different organizations.
Nate Otto:  So I didn't bring any visual aids with me 
  unfortunately but um you've got the model right uh we previously 
  had this concept called the badge class and now this has been 
  renamed achievement.
Nate Otto:  And the idea is that there's a defined set of things 
  that go together it's named there's a symbolic image perhaps the 
  descriptive of this achievement there's a criteria describing how 
  it will be assessed whether someone has met the um the threshold 
  or not that alignment skills Etc all that bundle of information 
  that applies to everyone who Awards there is awarded the same 
  achievement is part of that packet that we call the achievement 
  and So within a verifiable credential the structure is that the 
  credential subject um claim in an open badges um credential type 
  has an achievement property and then the achievement property is 
  1 single entity bundle of this stuff and so many different 
  individual Learners can have a credential uh that recognizes the 
  same achievement as 1 another.
Nate Otto:  I got to unpack that a little bit uh you know and 
  explain for the audience like what is a traditional backpack um.
Nate Otto:  Back in 2012 2011 um the Mozilla Foundation uh worked 
  on what they call the reference implementation of an open badges 
  backpack and that was a web service in which an individual would 
  have an account and it was possible to upload the badges that 
  that user had earned uh to that account um only badges uploaded 
  to the account email address would be allowed within the backpack 
  but then within the backpack uh you could share individual badges 
  by a URL on the the backpack domain or you could.
Nate Otto:  Getting a little background noise from some of these 
  mic please be.
Nate Otto:  Um or you could.
Nate Otto:  I should gather them together into a collection and 
  then share a collection as a URL um we do see a number of 
  verifiable credentials compatible web wallets that are using the 
  same type of pattern where it's a web service not a strictly a 
  mobile uh device there is cloud-based storage for the credentials 
  and you can upload them from various places in addition maybe 
  some of these um web wallets will implement the open badges 3.0 
  API and and have sort of server to server connections where they 
  can be a Dropbox for your credentials even when you're not 
  present in the browser to click buttons and accept them uh and in 
  that way it is entirely possible that a a credential wallet um 
  that compatible with open badges 3.0 will function really 
  similarly to how a um open badge is 1.0 uh backpack worked back 
  in uh 2013 um there is a lot of open questions on like which 
  protocols to deliver credentials to users will.
Nate Otto:   The implementation.
Nate Otto:  Actually pick up and which uh backpacks hosts wallets 
  whatever you want to call them um will become you know broadly 
  usable um my my theory on this is and we can check back in 
  another few years and see if I was right is that the way the 
  consumption platforms are really what matters um when we have 
  killer apps for verifying a credential that does something really 
  valuable for the user because they had a credential that wouldn't 
  have been possible if we didn't have a credential recognizing 
  that thing um then whatever platforms are connected and able to 
  help the user present their credentials uh into that killer app 
  um verifier are going to be the ones that um become the most 
  valuable and so whatever protocols make sense for those uh those 
  wallets working backward to the issuer will be the ones that the 
  issuers will most want to implement um open badges you know trees 
  like in in some ways it tries to do all the things um before we 
  picked up uh verifiable credentials compatibility with 3.0.
Nate Otto:   Um open bad.
Nate Otto:  You had to define something for every layer of the 
  tech stack and that included.
Nate Otto:  Protocol for delivering 2 backpacks and then from 
  backpacks to verifiers uh it was covered you know all the 
  verification layers and now we can Outsource some of those layers 
  into specialist specs um at the w3c the credentials community 
  group um Etc and so open badges can maybe focus on its real core 
  value proposition which is on the data model itself on what it 
  means to have an achievement um and the the trust model for you 
  know what it means when many issuers are out there in the world 
  recognizing many different achievements aligned to many different 
Nate Otto:  They get did I get the fence that you were asking 
  pretty well.
Nate Otto:  Cool yeah I mean great questions and maybe uh very 
  close to my heart because I I really think that verification and 
  consumption you know using badges for something valuable is is 
  really what's going to drive this Market um forward and so I can 
  tell a little bit about my work um as well so uh I now have a 
  small consultancy that my company skybridge skills uh that 
  advises companies on how they might Implement in this space what 
  the technical decisions custom code Etc um and also I am building 
  an open source platform as part of my work called Orca um it's 
  the open recognition Community app um right now it's in a fairly 
  early stage uh we did hit a version 1.0 and made the open source 
  release in December at the Epic conference in Vienna and we'll be 
  uh you know trying out uh a conference based badge earning and 
  peer recognition experience coming up at the badge Summit in 
  August and then again at the um this year's edition of the Epic 
Nate Otto:   In October in.
Nate Otto:  Or November in Paris.
Nate Otto:  I think that it consumption is super important and.
Nate Otto:   So I.
Nate Otto:  Didn't want to just build another issuing platform 
  there's it's it's pretty easy to put credentials out there um 
  thanks to a lot of the great open source low-level libraries 
  produced by the verifiable credentials Community uh you know 
  special shout out to digital Bazaar I'm using a lot of their 
Nate Otto:  Um but uh consumption is really where the energy is 
  and so Orca is a platform that right now it can issue but I'm 
  struggling to find time and implementing the verification side 
  I'll have that in place by August um at the badge Summit and we 
  can really um play around with this idea the idea is that there 
  is a community that.
Nate Otto:  Has a reason to be together anything from a local 
  sports team whose primary interest is making sure people show up 
  for the practices so that they have enough people uh who are 
  ready to play at the pickup game on Tuesday um all the way up to 
  say a department at a formal higher ed institution um but you 
  know maybe like better for communities that are within that 
  dunbar's number you know people who actually know each other um 
  so this platform prioritizes self claiming workflows and peer 
  endorsement workflows each achievement that is um defined within 
  an orca Community can be associated with a set of governance 
  rules about who can claim it who can invite others to claim it um 
  and whether there's prerequisites whether this is a review 
  requirement before whether you know a certain qualified user 
  needs to review it before a claim becomes valid uh and it can be 
  customized to the needs of the whatever Community is using it for 
  whatever type of achievements matter to them um skills 
  recognition is probably.
Nate Otto:   Probably 1 of the key.
Nate Otto:  And as part of orca's flow we want to make it so that 
  if you have an achievement recognized in a badge from a different 
  Community or some other issuer that you can bring it in and use 
  it as evidence to apply for an achievement that is valued locally 
  so imagine there is a um software development company 50 
  employees and they have a number of skills that they care about 
  for their team covering the the tech stack that they work on you 
  need to know a few languages you need to know some deployment and 
  build tools you need to have uh experience with the QA 
  methodologies and project management methodologies that are used 
  and then you need to have a whole range of uh you know 
  transferable skills 21st century skills um durable skills however 
  you you define those within your community.
Nate Otto:  Um if you've got some of these hard skills or soft 
  skills from elsewhere that are recognized in a credential bring 
  it in um but it might be named something else if it came from 
  somewhere else it's not directly transferable but the local 
  community has an interest in understanding what is it that you 
  know as it applies to our local understanding and naming of these 
Nate Otto:  Is you can.
Nate Otto:  Drop in the badges you already have um onto the 
  badges that you want and then that will allow you to create a 
  claim for those badges that you want which will then be reviewed 
  through the appropriate governance mechanisms of that community 
  and so I I hope that through this particular open-source um 
  implementation of verification we can really explore a lot of the 
  concepts of how do we transfer meaning between different 
  communities uh on open badges In This Very decentralized 
  ecosystem there's many different achievements out there that 
  might represent almost the same thing there's many different 
  issuers most of which you've never heard of before um how do we 
  navigate the trust landscape and use these achievements as 
  evidence to turn into some kind of real actionable local 
  understanding within the communities that you participate in and 
  uh care about so open source software Orca produced by skybridge 
  skills come try it out at the badge Summit um and.
Nate Otto:   See if.
Nate Otto:  Give me your opinions and and takes on what um 
  verification stories really matter to you.
<michal_jarmolkowicz> Is there a concept of reputation of a 
  community in ORCA?
Nate Otto:  Can I um yeah can I get Mel's question um Mel in the 
  chat asks is there a concept of reputation of a community in Orca 
  and you know a community in this case think of it as any 
  credential issuer at all so is there a concept of the reputation 
  of a credential issuer we are trying to maybe build that concept 
  together as a community uh we're trying to build it in ways that 
  are appropriately flexible and Equitable but simple and powerful 
  enough to actually use and we need services that help us do that 
  and so there are some missing pieces in this ecosystem and 
  particularly the the trust model of credentials.
Nate Otto:  I think open badges is at at 1.
Nate Otto:  Point it's both a easy case and a hard case for 
  thinking about um reputation of issuers and Trust of credentials 
  and I think it's a really great ground for us to try out some of 
  the trickiest problems and to force us to build the services that 
  really matter the most um essentially we need to be able to 
Nate Otto:  Is this credential that I'm being presented today 
  reputable and I want to be able to access information about its 
  issuer um and.
Nate Otto:   Look at the.
Nate Otto:  Of the credential itself ensure that the issuer 
  actually is the organization that it says it is which is itself 
  quite a large problem.
Nate Otto:  What are the data sources that could help you answer 
  some of those questions certainly we have the data in the 
  credential itself we can see the the names of the skills that it 
  is aligned to Etc but if we can't answer whether the issuer is 
  actually the organization that it says it is is this Kalamazoo 
  University or is this uh you know a fake issuer just saying that 
  their Kalamazoo University um then we wouldn't really be able to 
  get very far on this question of of issuer reputation and trust 
  and so um I am looking to help uh Implement and build and 
  cooperate with others in the space around.
Nate Otto:   How we answer.
Nate Otto:  I have a predict.
Nate Otto:  Angle that I'm going to take with with Orca and Sky 
  Bridge skills which is.
Nate Otto:  To think of reputation as something that we need to 
  have information about very quickly that's actionable that we can 
  um you know have at our fingertips on demand about the whatever 
  arbitrary issuer we're asking about but also it's it's something 
  that needs to develop and grow or organically through the actions 
  of the users in um the ecosystem and so what I mean by that is 
<pl/t3> This is quite analogous (verification stories)  to the 
  perosnal identity reputation signals that we'll hear more about 
  tomorrow with meronymous communication within a particular 
  community - in this case academic researchers and students in a 
  particular discipline.
Nate Otto:  Review of accreditation of Institutions does not 
  scale quickly to the hundreds of thousands of issuers that were 
  actually going to see out there in in the open badges World 
  especially if you know there's open source software like Orca or 
  anyone can just pick it up either run as a hosted um uh service 
  from a service provider like skybridge skills or um as open 
  source software that they host themselves they could just become 
  an issuer and how do they organically like merge into a world in 
  which um accreditation exists and we need to have all these 
  trusts questions answered so I think that we need to find ways 
Nate Otto:  To mediate issuer trust by making that information 
  available immediately on demand but also be collected.
Nate Otto:  In the background consensually um every time that uh 
  credential is accepted by another organization there should be a 
  place to be able to report back a little bit about the reputation 
  information that you have created through the process of 
  evaluating and accepting that credential and so I'm interested in 
  building um trust registry services and collaborating with that 
  and protocols such as the um verifiable issuers and verifiers 
  list um protocol to extend that and.
Nate Otto:  Be able to have 2 directional information flow about 
  reputation of issues and communities.
<michal_jarmolkowicz> Great, thx
Nate Otto:  Might have been a little bit more of a deep dive uh M 
  but how did that go for you.
<pl/t3> @Nate - do you think people will be willing to spend the 
  time and energy giving this feedback you're suggesting for a 
  trust registry?
<simone_ravaioli> Michal did you want to intervene ?
Nate Otto:  That's a great question I mean I think bring your use 
  cases feel free to suggest um issues on the open badges 
  specification repo within the 1 Ed Tech um GitHub organization um 
  I think that we'll see some extension of additional optional 
  metadata that you can put in there but the really key important 
  pieces for open badges maybe around some of these trusts 
  questions um so we may see some approaches that are trial by um 
  folks out here in the implementation land um.
<pl/t3> Just repeat it briefly yourself @simone - little time 
Nate Otto:  We may see those elevated up into the spec uh to be 
  able to answer some of those key questions we'll also likely see 
  additional uh did methods and proof um crypto Suites and formats 
  kind of blessed um by the the work group um 1 other element that 
  I didn't mention yet in today's call is that 1 a tech offers 
  certification for platforms um from paying members who um pass 
  their certification suite and you need to choose 1 of the the 
  methods uh for all the different layers of the text act supported 
  by the certification platform so it's likely that the the types 
  of methods supported by the certification platforms will grow as 
  part of a little 3.1 releases but what we have for 3.0 is a huge 
  change from uh 2.0 um especially with compatibility with 
  verifiable credentials and we have you know a decade of 
  exploration of the awesome potential that this um release has 
  created there's not a huge need for you know burning use cases 
  that are.
Nate Otto:   Not yet covered by this I think um.
Nate Otto:  The most important work that we have in the coming.
<sharon_leu> Are 1EdTech members going to start implementing 3.0 
  before we even start the 3.1 conversation?
Nate Otto:  Years is implementation work and to my eye especially 
  implementation work on the verifying and consumption side.
<nate_otto> Yes, Sharon, implementation first, I doubt there will 
  be a 3.1 charter even proposed for 18 months with possible scope.
Nate Otto:  Uh yep absolutely um so we don't have much time uh on 
  left on this call but I recommend going to the open badges 
  specification itself there is a certification guide linked from 
  the specification um and so I recommend taking a look at that 
  there is a.
<sharon_leu> Certification is only for conformance, though, 
Simone Ravaoli: https://www.imsglobal.org/spec/ob/v3p0/impl/
Nate Otto:  A certification test suite and you basically go to a 
  website and then plug in some information upload some credentials 
  and it will in an automated way test whether your platform is 
  conformant um there is an open source version of that software 
  published on 1 of text GitHub um organization and in Java and uh 
  I certification is open only to paying members but you could 
  download the Open Source public verifier and like check to see if 
  your platform um meets it but then the result of certification is 
  that your platform is published on the 1 Ed Tech what they call 
  the trusted apps directory um where other um where where our 
  customers can hopefully find you and purchase your uh Your 
  solution um as far as finalization of the spec there is a um 
  certification requirement before the spec goes final and open 
  badges met that hurdle uh in quarter 2 um which then opened it up 
  for the final vote and now open badges 3.0 is final final um CLR 
<sharon_leu> canivc.com works too
Nate Otto:  Which has a common data model to open badges 3.0 is 
  not yet final just because they're waiting on the last uh 
  certification so if you're in a certified if you're uh ready to 
  certify in a verifying consuming role for CLR you can help that 
  spec get over that last hurdle by implementing passing the 
  certification Suite.
<deb_everhart_(credential_engine)> thank you so much all!
<naomi> :clap:
<sharon_leu> Thanks
Nate Otto:  Thank you and every.

Received on Thursday, 4 July 2024 21:30:01 UTC