Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0 (#343)

Apologies.  I thought I had sent a message months ago (either as email or here) making clear that we are not specifically looking for any particular feedback from TAG.  We had offered to schedule a call with TAG members at any point to cover the ecosystem, etc., but did not receive a response to that offer.
In the mean time, the Working Group continued with its work, published a second CR and a PR, and had its final teleconference two days ago.  The Working Group's charter ends at the end of this month, although it could possibly be extended purely for maintenance work on the Recommendation when it comes out.

> Hi all. We are returning to this at our F2F in Tokyo. We'd like to resolve it ASAP, so it would be good to sort these questions:
> 
> 1. @burnburn, have you managed to resolve @lknik's concerns?

The working group continued to affirm its interest in providing as much in the way of non-normative recommendations that it could.  No changes to that section have been made.  If absolutely necessary, changes such as those suggested by @lknik could be added post-Recommendation in the Credentials Community Group, which is the group the WG explicitly named to handle maintenance.

> 2. What part of this ecosystem is outside of your charter and specified elsewhere? Could we please see those specs/documents, to understand how all the pieces fit together?  Specifically, We are concerned by this part of @travisleithead's comment:
> 
> > Our overarching concern, is that if this specification becomes a standard, it will be held up by governments and lawmakers as the new requirement for a DiD data model, but will be impossible to get interop in practice (because of the out-of-scope bits that @burnburn mentioned in the OP)
> 
> What important parts of this are currently out of scope?

As I mentioned above, we offered to meet with the group and cover your questions live, as the quantity of work outside the charter but relevant here is quite substantial, more than can be addressed by a few document links.  Most relevant to the question by @travisleithead , however, is that production, transport, storage, use, etc. of the data model document was specifically chosen to be out of scope at the explicit request of several companies, including I believe, Microsoft.  The charter was thus approved with the narrow scope we have been operating under for the (now complete) lifetime of the group.  Feel free to ask the W3C team why the objectors to a broader charter did not wish a more complete set of work to be done at W3C; since some of the objections were private, I am not in a position to speak to that myself.  Within the limitations of our charter, the working group members are satisfied as to the interoperability of the _data model_.

> 
> We are still unclear how this spec fits into the ecosystem you imagine, and how that works with the web architecture. If you can help us understand this, we can close it in the next day or two. If not, we're not sure we can add much value here.

We do not seek particular feedback from the TAG at this point.  Many of us, myself included, will be at TPAC next week and would be happy to help you or others understand the broader (and growing) ecosystem in which this now-completed work plays a part.

I will be co-chairing the new Decentralized Identifier Working Group on Monday and Tuesday.  Please don't hesitate to come find me or @msporny .

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/343#issuecomment-530854721