Minutes for VCWG telecon 13 November 2018

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