Verifiable Claims charter proposed edits

Dear all,

As members of the VCTF are aware, I am shepherding the proposed charter 
through the process of, all being well, securing member agreement to set 
up the new WG. To this end I have been reading through the many comments 
on the charter, have attended a couple of the TF's calls and, today, 
been looking closely at the charter. Having done all that, I found a 
couple of places where I felt it prudent to make some minor changes to 
the charter that I'll describe below.

My version can be seen at
https://philarcher1.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/

I generated a diff from the TF's current version that you can see at
https://philarcher1.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/2016-11-16-diff.html

Change log
==========

1. I found the second point under "Working Group will" a little 
confusing so I turned it into a list.

2. Under the WG will not, I was mindful of Mike Champion's emphasis on 
standards being a consensus of what's happening, not a tool with which 
to create something new. I therefore amended

"Attempt to create infrastructure, other than a data model and 
syntax(es), for a verifiable claims ecosystem."

to say

Attempt to *lead the creation of a specific style of* supporting 
infrastructure, other than a data model and syntax(es), for a verifiable 
claims ecosystem.

In other words, infrastructure should happen of its own accord but the 
VC standard won't itself lead the way. It's a minor change but I hope it 
changes the emphasis in line with the thoughts expressed by some AC 
members, especially Mike C's.

3. I inserted the UCR doc as a new WG deliverable. I am well aware that 
a lot of work has been done on this already (we talked about it on the 
call yesterday) but it is normal IMHO for a WG to create its own UCR 
against which it can then evaluate its outputs.

4. In section 3.4 I've linked directly to the credentials CG and the 
webpayments IG.

5. Interop success criteria. The WG is developing a data model and 
vocab. That's not new technology as such, it's a way of using {insert 
favoured data format here}. What the WG *will* want to show is that the 
data model is useful in different scenarios and, having highlighted the 
education and payments use cases, I've put those in and suggested 
success criteria of two players in each of those domains using the 
model. AIUI, this is readily achievable amongst the likely WG members, 
let alone those outside. A test suite - presumably chunks of data - 
might be useful for the future Rec track work that the WG is clearly 
hoping to undertake once the work foreseen in this charter is complete. 
That makes sense and is a good thing to do so let's keep it in the charter.

Comments are, of course, welcome.

Thanks

Phil

-- 


Phil Archer
Data Strategist, W3C
http://www.w3.org/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2016 15:29:56 UTC