- From: Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:43:09 -0700
- To: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, at 02:38 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 06/14/2016 11:03 AM, Joe Andrieu wrote: > > I'd like to suggest that the requirements modeling for verifiable > > claims is far from complete and could/should be a work product moving > > forward. > > Agreed, but for W3C Process reasons, this work product: > > 1. Should not be a part of the Verifiable Claims Working Group work. > 2. Should probably not be a part of the Web Payments IG. > 3. Should probably be incubated in the Credentials Community Group. Fair enough. Let's take this offline and have a conversation about how best for me to engage. I have two main goals here, and I don't want to disrupt the Verifiable Claims process unnecessarily. The first is to help make sure the working group has a scope of work that can address UN SDG16.9. If the scope--as defined by use cases--gets "locked down", I'm not sure how we do that in the timeframe we have available. I understand the IP regime issues, which brings me to my second goal. But understanding this IP issues doesn't help with this first goal. The second goal is to figure out how to shift conversations about requirements from upfront specifications to ongoing modeling. This is MUCH bigger than just this one working group and based on comments on the call this morning, with regards to the W3C, "it's complicated". Part of this is figuring out how to talk about requirements modeling. That's the book I'm working on. The other part of this is learning how organizations like the W3C handle requirements and more importantly, how we might shift the cultural norms, best practices, and formal processes to enable a more fluid concept of requirements. Maybe taking on an established standards body like the W3C is a hard mountain to climb, but I'd like to at least engage the conversation. At the same time, I don't want to interrupt the Verified Claims work as part of that conversation. ... > Keep in mind that the proposal for work is just in data model and > syntax... not protocol... the use cases and lifecycle for that isn't > done and won't be for a while. Ok. Maybe that's the mismatch in my understanding. I'm still figuring out how the different groups interoperate and how the work moves forward. ... > > For what it's worth, I would be willing and interested in > > contributing to or leading that effort. > > +1, would love to have you lead this effort! Great. Let's chat off the list about how we do that. -j -- Joe Andrieu joe@joeandrieu.com +1(805)705-8651 http://blog.joeandrieu.com
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 03:43:33 UTC