Re: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-09-06

Thanks for your continued engagement in this discussion, Mike. More below...

On 09/15/2016 03:55 PM, Michael Champion wrote:
> Microsoft won’t have a formal position until we see a charter the W3C
> Team proposes to the AC

I feel like we're in a catch-22. It feels like W3M won't propose a
charter to the AC until both Microsoft and Google are convinced that
this is work that should not be blocked from proceeding.

Wendy, where are we wrt. the charter proposal to the W3C AC?

> But speaking from my personal understanding, I don’t see changes in 
> the revised draft charter that mitigate the concerns we’ve stated in 
> email and at the IG meeting in July.

Hmm, I went point by point in your emails and attempted to address
those points in the revised charter and the supporting documentation in
the VCWG proposal. Were you looking at the latest version of the revised
charter w/ Microsoft and W3Cs comments taken into account?

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/rc-2.html

Diff-marked version available here:

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/rc-2-diff.html

> In short, I agree with the point in Manu’s recent blog post 
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/ that part of the necessary 
> due diligence before creating a WG is to “Perform a gap analysis.
> 
> Identify capabilities that are missing from the Web Platform and 
> explain why those capabilities can address some of the use cases …”.
>  I don’t see such an analysis in the VC WG proposal package, and Manu
>  doesn’t link to one in the blog post that mentions VC several
> times.

We performed a gap analysis roughly a year ago and published our
findings here:

http://manu.sporny.org/2015/credentials-retrospective/
http://manu.sporny.org/2015/credentials-via-w3c/

It's true that we didn't link to that in the VCWG proposal or the blog
post. I've corrected the link in the blog post. Would you like us to add
the links to the gap analysis in the VCWG proposal as well?

> - If that gap analysis identifies additional requirements for 
> verifiable JSON, Microsoft is likely to strongly recommend they be 
> addressed in IETF.

The gap analysis identified far more than merely additional requirements
for verifable JSON. For example, we need an extensible data model that
is compatible across JSON and Linked Data (JSON-LD). Much of that
technology is in the W3Cs domain, not the IETFs.

> -  If the VC WG intends to fill gaps at a different architectural 
> level than existing standards do, the WG proposers should sketch out
>  what that architecture looks like

We did that here, in the "Proposed Verifiable Claims Architecture" document:

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/

> and make the case that the additional level is useful.

We did that here in the "Architecture Benefits to Stakeholders" section:

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/#benefits

> Furthermore, I am not convinced that those proposing a Verifiable 
> Claims WG have the critical mass of key stakeholders needed to make a
> new standard successful.  They should cover different industries, 
> represent both users and implementers of these technologies, and 
> consist of people who roughly agree on both the problem that needs to
> be solved and a roadmap for how to solve it.  For example, the WG 
> proposal lists a number of implementers and users of a VC 
> Recommendation, but are they the ones who can really make what the WG
> comes up with a real world success?

The group believes that these organizations can make the WGs output a
real world success and a select number of them are running trials using
the Verifiable Claims technology in live pilot projects with some going
into production soon.

> Some have advised tightening the proposed WG’s scope to address 
> challenges in industries that the WG participants can directly 
> impact, and that makes sense to me.

The latest charter constrains the use cases to the education and
payments sector:

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/rc-2-diff.html#problem

Specifically:

"""
Focusing the group on Working Group participant use cases which are
expected to center on the education and payments industries.
"""

Given some of this new information that you may not have had, what
issues remain? I'm asking because I don't know if any of these items
have met your criteria as some of the requirements you state like "have
a critical mass of key stakeholders" mean different things to different
people.

-- manu

[1]http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/support/

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/

Received on Friday, 16 September 2016 00:49:52 UTC