- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:56:26 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2018/12/18-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Yancy!
The next meeting will be held on Jan 8.
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
18 Dec 2018
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Dec/0016.html
Attendees
Present
Allen_Brown, Amy_Guy, Benjamin_Young, Brent_Zundel,
Dan_Burnett, Dave_Longley, Dmitri_Zagidulin,
Joe_Andrieu, Kaliya_Young, Kaz_Ashimura, Ken_Ebert,
Manu_Sporny, Matt_Stone, Mike_Lodder, Oliver_Terbu,
Sam_Weiler, Ted_Thibodeau, TimTibbals, Tim_Tibbals,
Yancy_Ribbens, Adrian_Gropper, David_Chadwick
Regrets
Chair
Matt_Stone, Dan_Burnett
Scribe
Yancy
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Introduction
2. [5]Unassigned Issues
3. [6]Document Conformance for Data Models
4. [7]PR review
* [8]Summary of Action Items
* [9]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<stonematt> Agenda:
[10]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Dec/0
016.html
[10] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Dec/0016.html
<stonematt> Scribe: Yancy
<stonematt> scribenick: Yancy
Introduction
<weiler> weiler: I work at MIT on the W3C helping with security
and privacy strategy. I met many of you at recent TPACs and at
the workshop
<weiler> ... at Microsoft last week. Just dropping by.
<manu> rhiaro: Hi Amy Guy, will be working with Digital Bazaar
on some W3C spec work.
Unassigned Issues
stone: next topic
<stonematt>
[11]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Ao
pen+is%3Aissue+no%3Aassignee+-label%3Adefer
[11] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is:open+is:issue+no:assignee+-label:defer
stone: 312 cr blocker?
manu: no that's no a cr blocker
... can close with no changes
... how do we know if next one is a cr blocker
... I can take tat one as well
... 317 is the only one that's a blocker
<manu> [12]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/336
[12] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/336
manu: also wanted to point out that other one is blocker 336
... job stuff in the spec but there are interop issues that
need to be cleanedup. it's an iteration on the job stuff
stone: that work is progressing. do you want to introduce an
agenda item
manu: oliver to respond
stone: next topic
Document Conformance for Data Models
stone: introduced by dan b on 317
<stonematt> [13]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/317
[13] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/317
burn: there have been a number of topics such as valid vs
verify. ted has brought up concerns many times that this is
data and syntax being discussed and not data model
... where to draw the line of syntax vs data model
... to complete candidate recommendation we need demonstrations
of implementations
... have worked on other specs
... jsonld is a special case and feel free to look at those in
the meantime
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that I added a CR Blocker
burn: brief summary were after document conformance
... it is not appropriate for us to put requirements on what an
issuer must do and what a verifier or holder must do to receive
a document
... very important we get this fixed
... once we get this fixed we shouldn't have problems holding
to the scope
... one way to think of this is that it can be helpful to think
of this as this is a property of
... issuer, holder or verifier
... if so this is probably syntax on the model
... anything else is informative
... we just need to be careful that it's not normative
... for com-formative they are true no matter what
... some examples in 317
... not correct for the spec. for example, the age property is
a little complex but it's still static
... not appropriate the verifier must make sure the expiration
hasn't gone passed the current date and time
... dereferencing is in the category of issuer of verifier and
not in scope for our specification
... usage guidance is not normative
<manu> +1 -- don't know why we didn't think of this like a year
ago :)
<TallTed> +1000000 This is exactly the direction in which I've
been trying to push.
stone: the key verb for us is verify or verifiable
<manu> TallTed, see - we listen to you, man. :)
<manu> (eventually) :P
<manu> also, +1 this is really going to help the editorial
process.
burn: how to draw the line. even when you look at the
implementation report and statements, some of the statements
get close to behavior
... no way we can require producer or consumer of data
ted: exactly what he hoped would be done
... all actions are protocol
burn: can't go beyond charter
... we must stay away from non charter for now
stone: how are we going to use the existing testsuit?
... we have implementors that are building sofware, agents etc
... and api/protocol
<TallTed> WG-Note is a great place for things like
Implementation Tests that are more about Protocol than Model
stone: when it comes to the work that we've done, that work can
go and reference discussions we've had but it doesn't rep the
data model
burn: does not mean throw away. a lot of great work has been
done but we need to make sure or spec is clean
<kaz> [14]yet another example of WoT Thing Description
implementation report
[14] https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/testing/report.html
kaz: another exmaple
... very similar work to verifier model
... they are also implementing data model features (and
serialization of that data model based on JSON-LD), so could be
yet another example
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to talk about JSON-LD
burn: said would come back to jsonld as an example
... found interesting quirk in jsonld spec
... two parts grammar and transformation
... jsonld documents conforms to grammar
... the two specs both reference the same implementation report
... why he put this as not applicable
<TallTed> +1 our requirements are different than JSON-LD had
burn: it is only the requirements on the document that matter
... which is why NA was used for jsonld
stone: discussions in redmond about what's conformant in the
document
... going back to grammar - subject verb agreement
burn: wanted to get this in this call because of break coming
up
... and to think about this in these terms
... matts example is a really good one about the proof section
... really good conversation about proof section
... if a relationship can be defined that is a static
relationship then it could be ok
... must be really careful about the relationships between
parts of the document
... one attribute is greater than the other
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask for reviews (with PRs!) over
the break, we only have ZKPs as the last big outstanding
feature (on me), we're running out of PRs (which is a good
sign).
burn: always need to come back to what properties are static
without relation to producer or consumer
manu: all of that is great stuff
... hopefully people will have spare time during the holiday
... to review the document
... fantastic job doing PRs so far
<dlongley> so perhaps for JWTs... "if you have the property
`sub` at the top level of the JWT, it is equivalent to having
the property `id` in `vc.credentialSubject`" ... and then
informatively mention that the expectation is that signature
verifiers will do this transformation automatically (this is if
we decide we need these transformations)
manu: able to merge in a lot more of the PRs because they are
on point
... only one spec is having issue which is ZKP
... does not know if brent is planning on updating and manu
needs input
<burn> dlongley, 'equivalent' is tricky. Try to stick with
MUST/MAY/SHOULD if possible
manu: mostly document cleanup based on what dan and matt have
been talking about today
... merged in 15-20 PRs which is great
... no large design changes
... thinks the only request is to please review the spec
... if we get those two addressed that's all the outstanding
PRs we have so far
burn: now done with topic
brent: is planning on making changes to that PR
... have a good sense and getting together with manu and dave
... confident we will have the PR ready to go
ken: want to agree with what brent had to say and are close to
finishing
burn: thanks for all the work
<dlongley> +1
ken: thanks to manu and dave l
<oliver_terbu> also thanks to manu and dave
stone: new topic
burn: to submit one PR
... we need people to review and submit PRs
PR review
<stonematt> [15]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
[15] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
stone: PR reviews is next on the list
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if there is anything that folks
think we're missing? Anything big?
stone: any of these manu wants to run us through?
manu: only 5 so we can go through on the call
<manu> [16]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229
[16] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229
manu: PR 229 dropping link
... spec does not deal with authorization
... need to think long and hard about doing delegation
<manu> [17]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/265
[17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/265
manu: someone object or else it's getting closed
... dave and I have some action items but no concerns for 265
<manu> [18]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/283
[18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/283
manu: remove delegation to be merged after conflicts resolved
<manu> [19]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/313
[19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/313
manu: next one is 313
... life cycle example. is this PR ready to go?
stone: manu requested change to format and readability of
source, then ready
manu: will try to fix up changes and pull that in
<manu> [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/322
[20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/322
manu: has to do with jwt stuff
... needs to two things added. need to figure out what
transform rules are.
<oliver_terbu> base64
<oliver_terbu> yes, i will create these two PRs
<manu> +1, thx oliver_terbu
<JoeAndrieu> [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/298
[21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/298
<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to talk about
[22]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/337
[22] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/337
joe: not sure if you realize but 337 is why 298 was closed
... but it didn't really
manu: missed that but thank you. open 298 again?
burn: rewriting 6.2 section is his PR
... we will need to discuss if there are existing PRs that may
be in part correct that we may want to merge understanding
there isn't consensus
manu: should never have closed 298
joe: will pull in upstream edits and push
zakim: should we reuse issue?
manu: did add one new issue but you can use that one
davidc: 337 said it helps to resolve. don't say the he said it
did resolve
manu: davidc used language that triggered github to close
... the robots have turned against us
stone: thanks for a good call
<burn> Next meeting 3 weeks from today
<kaz> Jan 8
<kaz> [adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([24]CVS log)
$Date: 2018/12/20 02:55:23 $
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2018 02:57:29 UTC