- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 02:41:40 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/09/10-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Andrei!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
10 Sep 2019
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Sep/0004.html
Attendees
Present
Amy_Guy, Andrei_Sambra, Benjamin_Young, Brent_Zundel,
Dan_Burnett, David_Chadwick, Dudley_Collinson,
Joe_Andrieu, Justin_Richer, Kaz_Ashimura, Ken_Ebert,
Matt_Stone, Ted_Thibodeau, Oliver_Terbu, Yancy_Ribbens
Regrets
Chair
Matt_Stone
Scribe
deiu
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Data model PR Is out
2. [5]Use cases
3. [6]TPAC celebrate
4. [7]Future Facing
5. [8]Last Call
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribenick: deiu
<stonematt> scribenic: deiu
<stonematt>
[11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Sep/0
004.html
[11] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Sep/0004.html
stonematt: quick review now, we have some cleanup to do; the PR
is out and we can discuss what comes next
Data model PR Is out
stonematt: we can take a deep breath and smile, thanks all
<ken> Awesome!
stonematt: we do have a few more docs to get out the door, so
we'll spend a bit of time on those today. We are behind in
terms of publishing. Is Amy around?
... the first note to hit on is test suite publishing.
<rhiaro> I don't remember doing anything on the test suite
stonematt: I see Amy opened a couple of PRs. Is the test suite
ready to go? We said that Oct 31 is the deadline and the test
suite is ready to go. Do you have anything to add to that Amy?
<burn> Test suite is not a doc, doesn't need publishing
rhiaro: I have only dealt with the use cases and implementation
guide.
stonematt: OK, let's go to the implementation guide then.
<burn> [12]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/58
[12] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/58
stonematt: you have a PR opened for the imp-guide with a
checklist. Do you need help there?
... we need this today, right?
rhiaro: I don't know for sure. I used today's date.
stonematt: I think we're going to publish what we have, since
the expectation was that we're publishing what we had at the
beginning of the month. If we publish today we'll give
ourselves enough time.
... we'll ask the team contact (he usually joins at the top of
the hour) and he can validate the publishing day when he joins
<burn> Since we already voted for publication, all we need is
to tell Kaz when it's time. We also need to separately make a
group RESOLUTION that the CCG will take over maintenance of the
document
stonematt: Looking at the agenda, the next item is use cases.
Use cases
rhiaro: is there anything controversial or is it just conflicts
in the PRs?
<burn> We also need a clear RESOLUTION that the CCG will take
over all maintenance of the VCDM spec and incubate future
versions of the spec.
TallTed: it's mostly formatting, e.g. issues with nesting trees
and headings.
... we can avoid creating a huge mess by resolving conflicts
before merging.
... I'm not sure how to rename "verifiable claims" to
"verifiable credentials"
rhiaro: can you do that today?
TallTed: probably
stonematt: I'm going to assign proper tags to the PRs
<burn> Also, need to clearly state in a RESOLUTION that we
explicitly authorize the CCG not only to run the registries in
the spec but also to specify any governance details found to be
lacking.
stonematt: so we expect to have that done in hours.
TallTed: yes
ken: how can I help review that work? Is it 101 I should be
concentrating on?
stonematt: 111 is the one you should proofread now
<stonematt> [13]https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/111
[13] https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/111
TallTed: there are some issues with formatting there, sections
and bullet lists, etc.
ken: I will work on 111 and try to review 116 after
<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about claims v
credentials
JoeAndrieu: what is the current intention w.r.t. claims vs
credentials terminology
stonematt: is that addressed in 111, TallTed?
TallTed: It is not addressed yet, I can do the conflicts or do
this other thing.
stonematt: do the conflicts so we ca have a clean copy.
JoeAndrieu: so none of the PRs are actually addressing the
issue of correcting terminology. Amy can do you do that?
rhiaro: if it's just the case of find and replace...
stonematt: as long as it's in the body of the text and not the
group name
JoeAndrieu: take you best pass and we can provide feedback
after
... is there any thoughts about the *name* of the document?
<rhiaro> It's not in the short name so I don't see any reason
changing the title would be a problem
stonematt: let's ask Kaz if he comes on. It seems a pretty
daunting task.
... I'm worried the list of stuff left to do is getting a bit
long
TallTed: there are PNG graphics and SVG graphics. What's the
deal?
stonematt: kill the SVGs and keep PNG.
... TallTed is resolving conflicts and as soon as that's done,
just hit the merge button.
TallTed: I was going to tag rhiaro on the PR once I've finished
the conflicts but I can merge if you think that's better.
rhiaro: I don't mind. If someone wants to review, say so now,
otherwise we'll go ahead and merge.
<ken> +1 to merge and review after
JoeAndrieu: I say merge early and review after, since we have a
lot of outstanding PRs.
... the current definition for "verifier" is really wrong. I'm
not sure where to fix this.
<TallTed> <dt>Verifier</dt>
<TallTed> <dd>The <a>entity</a> verifying a claim about a given
subject.
<rhiaro> all of the terms were pulled directly from the data
model
<rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: if you ping me the correct dfn I can fix
it
stonematt: TallTed put the right one in IRC
... is the doc you're working on referencing the right
definition?
JoeAndrieu: rhiaro will deal with it after TallTed
stonematt: Once TallTed is done with the merge, we'll do the
typo check and other feedback. What happens if we find
something, since rhiaro is about to finalize the snapshot.
... thanks rhiaro and TallTed
<JoeAndrieu> btw, I have a draft resolution based on Dan's
request
stonematt: I'll start with the first resolution.
... [reading the three comments from burn]
... you have a draft resolution based on burn's request?
JoeAndrieu: it might be better to do them separately.
stonematt: let's say the data model spec is one, the registry
is another, and the CCG taking over the notes is the last one
[stonematt and JoeAndrieu reading proposed resolution texts in
the background]
<stonematt> there are 4 active repos w/ published documents: 1)
Data Model, 2) Use Cases, 3) Test Suite, 4) Implementation
Guide
<burn> Move or copy; not sure moving is allowed
stonematt: the first resolution is about changing ownership of
repos, and the second is about the registries
... we want all four to continue living and being dynamic
<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Credentials Community Group will
take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials Data
Model spec, Verifiable Credentials implementation guide,
test-suite, use case document, and incubate future versions of
the same.
<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verificable Claims
Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to take
over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials Data Model
spec, Verifiable Credentials implementation guide, test-suite,
use case document, and incubate future versions of the same.
<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verificable Claims
Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to take
over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials documents:
Data Model spec, Implementation Guide, Test Suite, and Use Case
document, and to incubate future versions of the same.
<JoeAndrieu> PROPOSED: We the Verificable Claims Working Group
authorize the Credentials Community Group to take over all
maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials documents: Data Model
spec, Implementation Guide, Test Suite, and Use Case document,
and to incubate future versions of the same.
<yancy> +1
<ken> +1
<JoeAndrieu> +1
<deiu> +1
<stonematt> +1
<Dudley> +1
<rhiaro> +1
<oliver> +1
<brent> +1
<TallTed> +q
<DavidC> +1
<TallTed> +1
<TallTed> -q
<burn> +1
RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize
the Credentials Community Group to take over all maintenance of
the Verifiable Credentials documents: Data Model spec,
Implementation Guide, Test Suite, and Use Case document, and to
incubate future versions of the same.
stonematt: let's do a similar one for the running & governance
of the registries
<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working
Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the
registries in the spec and to specify any governance details
found to be lacking.
<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working
Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the
registries in the spec and to specify any additional necessary
governance details.
<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working
Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the
registries describee in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model
spec and to specify any additional governance details as
necessary.
<ken> describee to described
<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working
Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the
registries describee in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model
specification and to define any additional governance details
as necessary.
<ken> +1
<JoeAndrieu> PROPOSED: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group
authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries
described in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model
specification and to define any additional governance details
as necessary.
<TallTed> +1
<JoeAndrieu> +1
<deiu> +1
<stonematt> +1
<brent> +1
<burn> +1
<Dudley> +1
<DavidC> +1
<yancy> +1
<ken> +1
<rhiaro> +1
RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize
the Credentials Community Group to run the registries described
in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification and to
define any additional governance details as necessary.
<Dudley> +q
stonematt: thank you everyone!
<oliver> +1
Dudley: I just noticed we got a typo "Verifiable" in the first
proposal
<JoeAndrieu> s/Verfiable/Verifiable/
stonematt: we still have a couple more topics on the agenda.
Let's start with DavidC, then burn, then have an open
discussion
<DavidC>
[14]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x8xWzo_qR6GuZ4jF1jlYKGZ
d09yBLhnL/edit
[14] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x8xWzo_qR6GuZ4jF1jlYKGZd09yBLhnL/edit
DavidC: I think everybody can see that document
... this is about the Response to DCMS Digital Identity: Call
for Evidence
... it's about improving digital identity in the UK. I've
produced draft answers to 20/21 items
... VC is exactly the right solution for them. This is a public
response, we don't want it to be private.
... they have a few examples of needs, but our list of use
cases is much longer. We're ahead of the game and can provide a
lot of use cases.
... there's a couple of places where I would like examples from
people here.
... I would also like a few more examples for the pain points.
Any comments so far?
stonematt: let's try to keep this within a 15 min limit? Maybe
quickly go through each of them and ask for volunteers.
<ken> David's document is not editable or commentable.
stonematt: we can do this as an aside, but are we changing the
short name of the spec? If so, you'll have to change the URL in
your doc, DavidC. I think it will be vc-use-cases
DavidC: I'm really looking for examples in the first 3 points.
If people could just add some in the next few days, it would be
great.
ken: the document is not editable nor can we comment
<DavidC>
[15]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8xWzo_qR6GuZ4jF1jlYKGZd09
yBLhnL/view?usp=sharing
[15] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8xWzo_qR6GuZ4jF1jlYKGZd09yBLhnL/view?usp=sharing
stonematt: there might be a hidden setting you can toggle
... try to find the Google version, not the docx.
<ken> The second link is also not editable.
<stonematt>
[16]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TO2CnpVN3-kEo5Xuwuw7CzC
q8Ml3zlqdFbp5IbCrlyQ/edit?usp=sharing
[16] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TO2CnpVN3-kEo5Xuwuw7CzCq8Ml3zlqdFbp5IbCrlyQ/edit?usp=sharing
<ken> This link works to edit.
<stonematt> use the doc from stonematt
DavidC: if people want to contribute, are you OK putting your
name in the doc so it gains more weight?
... can we have a resolution saying that the VCWG has read the
doc and we'll provide answers to those questions?
<Justin_R> 1+
stonematt: is there precedence for WGs doing things like these
in general? Signing our group name?
<burn> Working groups can make statements as a group, but make
sure there is consensus for it
Justin_R: if we're going to do something like this, I'm not
comfortable with it being published with the group's name. If
there's anything from this group, I'd rather see it done signed
by individuals with a stated association with the WG, stating
their expertise.
stonematt: DavidC, so what if we each sign our name?
<Dudley> +1
DavidC: I'm just worried about timing
... we can add at the beginning that the following list of
people have contributed.
Justin_R: if you were against it while the group quickly put
their name on a doc, that would be bad.
... this document is not part of the SDO process nor the
activities in the group's charter. I don't see why we're doing
this as a WG.
<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention timing issues
<oliver> +1 (justin)
Justin_R: in terms of process and propriety, it would be much
better if individuals would opt in to have their name listed.
<deiu> +1 too
DavidC: how about saying "the following members of VCWG..."
Justin_R: this group is not here to create opinions and this
document is way out of our charter
DavidC: that makes sense. It would be much nicer if the UK gov
would support our work. It's about marketing our group to the
UK gov to show them how it answers some of their needs.
stonematt: it seems we don't need a resolution after all. If
you feel like contributing to this document, please put your
name in the list.
TallTed: I would suggest you finalize the text of the document
and publish the link on the mailing list to see who's
interested.
... add a deadline.
JoeAndrieu: more people would like to support you DavidC than
people who will have bandwidth for it in the next week
DavidC: I'll send it to the list them, with the deadline set
for 9am GMT on Sunday morning.
stonematt: thanks DavidC, it's important to get critical mass
for adoption of our work.
... next item on the list is What's Next?
TPAC celebrate
burn: We've all worked very hard, as it's been a stressful last
couple of months. It would be a shame to just end the group
like this. I'm thinking it would be nice to have a party and
get together during TPAC.
... I would like to hear some opinions about what people might
like to do and where.
<deiu> +1 to party!
<JoeAndrieu> +1 to party
burn: the DID WG meetings are not scheduled yet. Right now our
efforts have been on getting the emails out for W3C members to
join the DIDWG. Our plan is to send out request for topics for
the agenda. Brent already has an agenda outline but we're still
waiting before we send it out. It will go out towards the end
of this week though.
<ken> +1 to dinner/party
burn: if anyone has specific suggestions, send them to me by
email, otherwise I'll arrange it.
<DavidC> -1 because I wont be there (only joking)
stonematt: I regret not being able to make it, otherwise I'd be
+1'ing the proposal.
<Dudley> +1 to Sun,Mon,Tues or Wed
stonematt: next topic is Future Facing.
Future Facing
stonematt: the end of our formal charter is here. The data
model doc is out, we all recognize that the charter was very
narrowly scoped, which limited our discussions. As we open the
next chapter of this work, we'll take the discussions to the
CCG.
... I thought it would be nice to start thinking about what we
want to do from here. People mentioned lack of protocol,
technical issues, wallets, repositories, etc.
JoeAndrieu: the CCG has fostered open conversations for what
comes after VCs and DIDs, as we start laying the ground. Kim
mentioned secure data hubs which led to conversions at RWoT.
... there's also a lot of conversations about what we do with
agents and wallets, both in terms of terminology but also
protocols.
... we look forward to incubating that dialogue.
stonematt: I have a related (tactical) question: who is
planning to go to the CCG and is planning to drive this work
forward?
<DavidC> I will
<ken> I will
<oliver> i will
burn: I am planning to continue. It's very important work.
stonematt: are we going to continue having CCG calls after
this? What does the schedule look like?
burn: there is no decision yet, we'll discuss call times at
TPAC. One option is to take over this slot, another option is
Thursday.
... probably not for 2h at the same time as this slot though.
<brent> +1 to not 2 hours :)
burn: but this is not my decision.
<oliver> +1 to not 2 hours
DavidC: it's about the access to the CCG. It's not as good as
for this group.
JoeAndrieu: when was the last time you tried DavidC? There have
been some significant upgrades re. network connectivity from
our host.
DavidC: people complained about not being able to hear me. Not
sure if it was just the software.
stonematt: is the CCG meeting next week or will it be canceled
because of TPAC?
JoeAndrieu: I am going to TPAC, so it's likely it will be
canceled.
burn: I am assuming we will also be canceling this call next
call. Even if the DIDWG ends up taking this slot today, I will
suggest we take some recovery time off after TPAC (and other
f-2-f meetings).
... I don't expect people to be doing any work right after a
face-2-face.
<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to have a sleep-in and recover
meeting
burn: it would be nice to decide about that before we end the
call today.
<Dudley> +1 to sleep-in it is 1:26am here..
Last Call
burn: I would not suggest two hours for that final day in
September anyway. Let's assume that today is our last call, so
as a last agenda item, I would like to have people talk about
their experiences if they wished to
<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say thanks
DavidC: I would like to express my thanks to the two chairs and
to Manu for all their hard work.
JoeAndrieu: I want to also say thanks. I felt extremely
welcomed and felt that I was able to contribute.
<kaz> * Request for AC reviews from the VCWG participants
<kaz> * VC use case document's new shortname (part of agendum 5
above)
<kaz> * Joint discussions at TPAC with WoT (even though the
VCWG itself will not meet at TPAC 2019)
<kaz> * Possible extension/rechartering for maintenance work
(and some more)
kaz: I wanted to check on a few points though some of those
topics were already discussed during the first hour (please see
above).
... the PR has been published and we have 9 responses from AC
reps. Please ask your AC rep friends to respond.
<burn> +1 to responding in favor of the VCDM spec being
published as a Recommendation
kaz: re. the new short name vc-use-case, we need to make a
resolution for this name.
stonematt: we have not made a resolution about the short name,
we'll fix that right now
<Zakim> rhiaro, you wanted to ask kaz what publication date we
should put on the implementation guide and use cases NOTEs?
rhiaro: this questions is about the implementation guide, what
date should we use?
kaz: re. the short name we'll have to wait until TPAC is over
(two weeks from now)
<rhiaro> So 2019-09-24 for both?
kaz: publication resumes on the 24th
<rhiaro> or just for use cases? Can implementation guide be
earlier?
burn: rhiaro just needs a date for the document.
<DavidC> question. Will the new name be /VC-use-cases/ or
/vc-use-cases/
kaz: I would like to the talk to the webmaster, but we should
be able to publish on the 24th
<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To rename the Verifiable Claims
Use Cases document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document
with the shortname "vc-use-case".
<rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: use-cases plural?
<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To rename the Verifiable Claims
Use Cases document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document
with the shortname "vc-use-cases".
kaz: it should be similar to the github repo name,
"vc-use-cases"
<TallTed> drop "To"
<JoeAndrieu> PROPOSAL: Rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases
document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the
shortname "vc-use-cases".
<TallTed> +1
<deiu> +1
<stonematt> +1
<Dudley> +1
<rhiaro> +1
<brent> +1
<ken> +1
<oliver> +1
<burn> +1
<yancy> +1
<JoeAndrieu> +1
<DavidC> +1
RESOLUTION: Rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases document to
Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the shortname
"vc-use-cases".
kaz: now about the joint discussions at TPAC with WoT (even
though the VCWG itself will not meet at TPAC 2019)
... in the joint discussions between DID and WoT WGs
... it would be better to invite you all to the WoT meeting on
Thursday or Friday.
burn: if anyone has conflicts please contact kaz
kaz: now to the last point, extending the VCWG by 2 months to
finish the REC transition. And also for maintenance work after
that.
stonematt: we had 2 resolution earlier about CCG picking up the
work once VCWG finishes
kaz: I'll talk with plh about it then
... I was wondering about people's interest in protocol work,
etc., so there might be other topics in addition to maintenance
work
burn: there are people who are interested but there is a timing
issue because of the DID work
... this work was controversial when it started, so my personal
opinion is that it would be better to wait at least one year or
wait for the DID WG. Of course, the work can be incubated in
the CCG.
kaz: what about the 2 month extension for finalizing the REC
transition?
burn: does the group need to exist when the REC comes out? plh
told me that isn't the case.
kaz: I'll get back to plh and have another discussion then.
(some more discussion about the groups' opinions)
burn: so kaz, the answer is no. Thank you.
... a few people thanked the chairs, but I would like to thank
the group.
... I really appreciate the group's willingness to get things
done.
... It's very important for the world to see there is a
standard around the work we're doing. Having a version 1 is
really important. There's a difference between "almost having
it" and actually "having it".
... there's been a lot of people who have contributed, so I
appreciate the effort from each and every one of you. I'm
looking forward to working with you in the DIDWG.
ken: I wanted to thank the chairs and the group for welcoming a
latecomer to the party and to support ZKP.
stonematt: I would like to echo burn's comment about having
v1.0 but also to pick up on JoeAndrieu's comment about this
being my first experience with a W3C WG. It has been very
rewarding, people can bring a lot of passion but can also move
forward.
... I hope this can be replicated in the DIDWG and we can take
it to the CCG.
... Also, thank you kaz for being our team contact and for
helping us along the way.
<burn> +1 re kaz. Thank you, thank you, thank you
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to appreciate the group's hard work and
great contributions again
kaz: thank you very much to everyone for your hard work and
great contributions, it was my pleasure.
oliver: also a latecomer, thank you all for welcoming me, I
really appreciate it.
stonematt: all right everyone, congratulations!
<JoeAndrieu> Congratulations, all! Thanks for the great work!
stonematt: I think this is the end of the call and of the VCWG.
We'll keep an eye on the pending PRs and publications. Thank
you thank you thank you.
burn: bye all and thanks again!
<stonematt> bye!
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [17]We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the
Credentials Community Group to take over all maintenance of
the Verifiable Credentials documents: Data Model spec,
Implementation Guide, Test Suite, and Use Case document,
and to incubate future versions of the same.
2. [18]We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the
Credentials Community Group to run the registries described
in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification and
to define any additional governance details as necessary.
3. [19]Rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases document to
Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the
shortname "vc-use-cases".
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([21]CVS log)
$Date: 2019/09/23 17:39:53 $
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 23 September 2019 17:42:46 UTC