- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 02:52:58 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2018/11/13-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Allen!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
13 Nov 2018
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Nov/0003.html
Attendees
Present
Adrian_Gropper, Allen_Brown, Brent_Zundel, Chris_Webber,
Christopher_Allen, Clare_Nelson, Dan_Burnett,
Dave_Longley, David_Chadwick, Ganesh_Annan,
Gregory_Natran, Joe_Andrieu, Kaz_Ashimura, Manu_Sporny,
Oliver_Terbu, Ted_Thibodeau, Tim_Tibbals,
Tzviya_Siegman, Yancy_Ribbens, Benjamin_Young, Ken_Ebert
Regrets
Matt_Stone
Chair
Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone
Scribe
Allen
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
2. [5]Unassigned Issues
3. [6]GitHub Project Review blockers
4. [7]GitHub Project CR blockers
5. [8]Next call
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
<inserted> scribenick: allen_
Burn: take a look at unassigned issues
... assign them
... look at blockers
... terms of use
... questions about agenda
Unassigned Issues
Burn: links correct
<burn>
[11]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&
q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee
[11] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is:issue+is:open+no:assignee
Burn: unassigned issuess
... looks funny being the same
... number 275
... just ame in
... takes answer more than discussion
Dave: will take
<cwebber2> I think that last one is a ld-sigs/proofs thing
rather than a vc thing
<cwebber2> unless I'm misreading
Burn: number 269 may not need someone to take will assign matt
who will not object
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to close - it's a graph.
Burn: number 260 is a vc tree or a graph need some one to take
David or Dave
Manu: it's a graph that's the data model
... will not come to any thing other than it's a graph
Burn: okay then will assign manu to close with graph answer
notwithstanding discussion
<DavidC> I am saying nothing!
Burn: number 253 this is not a blocker
<DavidC> Although the graph part of subject/claim has already
been removed
Burn: not anything at all will let go for now down at the end
of our discussions moving on
... number 252 there3's a lot of conversation happening with
some agreement
... who will take it
DavidC: what to do
Burn: like any issue help it to conclude and supply status
DavidC: will take
Burn: saw that it may be done
DavidC: says there's some disagreement
Burn: assign DavidC
... number 247 mandatory or optional -- have some to dos
... some work needed
... just looking at TPAC outpu
Joe: use case team looking at requirements in data model
looking at input from test suite
Burn: that's good will not drop check boxes at end
... assigned to Joe
GitHub Project Review blockers
<burn> [12]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/projects/1
[12] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/projects/1
Burn: sos only defers non spec important let's move on to get
hub project review blockers links for this and the next are the
sme
... if you look at this projectbunc of columns will talk about
it later will talk from memory
<TallTed>
[13]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/projects/1?card_filter
_query=label%3Areview-blocker
[13] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/projects/1?card_filter_query=label:review-blocker
Burn: the review blocker want to talk about is
... aske fro feed back and got it from PNG
... must have formal reviews done before requesting CR
... must do if we made the request expect no reprises from
formal reviews must address informal comments
... must consider the document complete all inputs accounted
for may still be changes but not substantitive
... can't ask for formal review without all pieces in place
... have review blocker items higher priority than CR blockers
... can request pre CR review while working on CR blblockers
... first is number 234 because it's an external comment must
address it
... asks that people look that issues in PRS
... if there are issues mark them Manu in particular
... still not loading on screen
Tzviya: which reviews has done reviews
Burn: not done formally continues to expect
Tzviya: need Internationalization, PING
Burn: need ODRL does not believe TAG review done
... if anyone is aware of others still take a look
... switch to looking at issues and PRS then move to CR
blockers and PR issues
... if not announced presence, please do so
... have not rescanned
... lets look at number 234
... interesting because issue we have refers to ODRL repo issue
... that's where comment lives skipping 1st part which is our
request, perhaps things we can do and updates
... commenter added to our repo and closed
Manu: mostly editorial, should be no issue in closing
burn done, looks editorial but needs to be done
Manu: need pr
Burn: correct moving fro triage to needs pr
... volunteer? David c has comment
<manu> I'll volunteer if I get to it first, others are welcome
to give it a shot.
DavidC: terms of use can move from vc out to context, if so
proposed edit will take over. have discussion about terms use
before edit
Burn: understand suggest but woes like to get review comments
done
... if could get done would be great even though irrelevant
later doesn't want terms of use discussion to be blocking
DavidC: just editorial bigger issue is how to handle at all
Burn: assign self to creating pr
... chasing the assignee to me {burn}
... now look at amp and jet functionality not described in do
getting them in in some form is valuable because can review
let's see what status is for 237 and 244
Brent: can speak to 237 265 was naive attempt trying to figure
out how to do more appropriately
... if cant'd do will conclude that ZKPs cannot be supported in
JSON-LD in this spec
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note "JSON-LD doesn't work for
ZKPs" -- let us know if we can help.
Ken: heart surgery not brain surgery to wedge in top priority
is to fit it in not JSON LD experts so struggling
<brentz> +1 to getting help from Manu et al.
Manu: happy to help but need to understand problem seemed
addressable but don't have details have another call to resolve
Ken: a couple of days from resolution will need help then to
guide to better landing
Benjamin: happy to help as chair of JSON-LD working group
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to mention scheduling other calls
Burn: hope doesn't require new JSON-LD
... possible to schedule additional calls team contact can do
chairs supportive if helps lets do it let's schedule as needed
... if can get topics in in will not request cr status ask on
this call or email matt
... brent and ken sounds like there are offers what would be
helpful
Brent: feu more days will help to formuquestions
Burn: wil you have next week
Brent: hopeful before thanksgiving
Ken: agrees
Burn: the other
Oliver: can address
<burn> This is Issue 266
Burn: do so
Oliver: comments by manu and dave solvable and addressable will
answer before committing pr still struggling with zk support
leavout jus and jet set up call on support zip and jwt
... ok thing call might be helpful comments?
... no other comments sounds like way to go asks oliver to send
email to burn and matt to schedule call will send out request
to list
Oliver: thanks
Burn: ok asks if 224 was including in ken or brent discussion
or just be cause of terms of use
Brent: latter but other things to do first
... concered bout terms of use but does not know how to resolve
Burn: thanks
Ken: must solve 237 else 244 is irrelevant
Burn: any other review blockers
DavidC: terms of use independent of zip is easier to resolve
(ZKP)
GitHub Project CR blockers
Burn: nothing to add was useful info one on to other cr
blockers objections"
<TallTed>
[14]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/projects/1?card_filter
_query=label%3Acr-blocker
[14] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/projects/1?card_filter_query=label:cr-blocker
Burn: will look at cards on the left skip terms of use for now
because it's a large topic look at smaller things first 241
... any comments?
... assign to manu update?
Manu: things to do doesn't need triage already done just action
actions
Burn: doesn't like needs triage
... beginning s of implementation items terms leading to zip
net yet present on hod for now didn't want to make suggestions
before zip worked through
... moving to needs pr agrees that depends on other pieces
... 252 does not like "project thing" two step process david
agreed to take 252 agrees with dlonlgey disagrees with joe
what;'s needed
DavidC: can he an joe reach agreement used said verifier needs
to know what it can accept verifier can't know this from
credential only know way of knowing who presenter is need
second vc in presentation if not there illegitimate
Burn: let joe respond then get to manu
Joe: another issue want to address thought there was consensus
david identified differences does not think verifier needs to
know
<cwebber2> I thought we came to consensus about this at TPAC
<manu> VCs are not about authorization
<cwebber2> like
<cwebber2> I thought there was a resolution
Joe: are vis about authorization if so how not intended for
authorization davids disagrees other feedback would be helpful
Burn: do quick check now discussion here christopher?
<TallTed> straw poll! (this also spins again into model vs
protocol.)
ChrisW: with joe and manu authorization out of scope auth
protocols will use vis but separate process add to what issue?
Burn: on 252 put comments there
<JoeAndrieu>
[15]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/commit/b4be87948040c78
4a678cd16c4835e14dd9259be#commitcomment-31277508
[15] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/commit/b4be87948040c784a678cd16c4835e14dd9259be#commitcomment-31277508
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if we can prioritize two
CR-blockers that we might be able to close.
Burn: will let manu go next
<cwebber2> we did discuss this at TPAC, yeah
<JoeAndrieu> I'm not sure if that's a PR or what... but that's
where David & I have had a bunch of discussion
<cwebber2> <cwebber2> Say VC core spec is not an authorization
framework on its own?
[16]https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-26-vcwg-minutes.html
[16] https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-26-vcwg-minutes.html
<cwebber2> and yes
Manu: wants to talk about 2 other cr blockers can close out
straw poll with authorization thing?
<cwebber2> we did the poll
<cwebber2> and we resolved it
<cwebber2> they are not an authorization framework
<cwebber2> we did this
<cwebber2> minutes are above :P
Burn: lets' do it thought we came to conclusion at tpac
... how to ask the question envois about asking on the spur of
the moment framing the question fors
anser
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say we're not ready to ask the
question... I can try to fill somethin gin.
Burn: supported effects answer ask the someone propose question
to be asked on mailing list or at next call
<cwebber2> right, they *can be* used in it
Manu: will take action vis can be used in auth framework sees
disconnect and will try to rid and come to conclusion
Burn: believes manu correct, helpful for manu to undertake
manu he will do
<TallTed> +1
Burn: wants to get right info
<manu> [17]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
[17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
Manu: have 2 cr blockers which can resolve
<manu> [18]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/207
[18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/207
<manu>
[19]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/207#issuecommen
t-437996604
[19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/207#issuecomment-437996604
Manu: points to 214 saving til end other has to has to renaming
claim to subject putting into arcs comment at bottom lots of
debate changing position
... criticism is that the only attribute whose id is not the
top the object rather than subject as argued by David C
<ChristopherA> I prefer credentialSubject.
Manu: claim was a graph thing removing that aspect then
subject/object stops being a problem if rename claim to subbed
problem goes away is thereobjecttion to change
Burn: make proposal
<manu> PROPOSAL: Change "claim" to either "subject" or
"credentialSubject".
<ChristopherA> +1
<manu> +1
<TallTed> +1
Manu: change claim to subject to subject or to credential
subject +1/-1 poll
<dlongley> +1
<DavidC> +1
Dave: also removing hidden graph as result of change
Burn: sees no -1s
<JoeAndrieu> +1
<cwebber2> =
<cwebber2> 0
<tzviya> +1
Manu: sees not +1s
... i'll put in pr. objectors can object to pr preference for
"credential subject"
<manu> I'll do a PR for "credentialSubject".
Burn: can do another proposal would prefer just pr see if that
works
<dlongley> boo for "credentialSubject" because we don't do
"credentialIssuer" or "credentialHolder"
<manu> [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
[20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
Manu: that's one the other is verifiable data registry item
brent ken manu david discussing closing in on resolution
<ClareNelson> +1
<manu> Verification Material Registry
<manu> Cryptographic Data Registry
<manu> Verification Data Registry
<manu> Cryptographic Material Registry
<manu> Verifiable Data Registry (do we still want to keep this
option for the vote?)
Manu: question has to do with with the eco system diagram
updates for zips says registry can contain other things
registry necks renaming have several options for renaming
<dlongley> and we can also just do "Registries" and talk about
different ones in prose.
<JoeAndrieu> +1 for "registries" with explanation / details
after
<dlongley> +1
<ChristopherA> please
Manu: just say "registries" detail elsewhere can we just call
them "registries" if people don't like can give another name
proposal"
Ted: registry is annoying term question of centralization
<ChristopherA> repository?
Manu: some centralized others not
... have one box
Ted: notedtension
... repository better than registry
... repository open registry closed
Burn: out of time
<manu> TallTed, please join that conversation.
ChrisW: uncomfortable with registry
<manu> [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
[21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
Burn: join in conversation one pr (214)
... comment on github
Next call
Burn: chairs ask about call next week unless overwhelming
objection
<brentz> +1 to a call
<TallTed> +0 to concall 2018-11-20
<cwebber2> I think I'll be on a plane
<JoeAndrieu> +0
<ken> +1 for call
<tzviya> +1
burn can put comments in irc regarding call
<DavidC> +1 for call
Burn: call over
<burn> -1 for call for me (on vacation and cannot attend)
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([23]CVS log)
$Date: 2018/11/13 17:52:00 $
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2018 17:54:03 UTC