14:38:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:38:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/30-vcwg-irc
14:39:39 <burn> Chairs: DanB, RichardV, MattS
14:39:49 <burn> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017May/0013.html
14:41:55 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:41:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/30-vcwg-minutes.html burn
14:42:01 <burn> rrsagent, make minutes public
14:42:01 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', burn.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:46:08 <burn> rrsagent, make logs public
14:50:28 <burn> present+ DanBurnett
14:57:38 <burn> present+ JoeAndrieu
14:59:27 <burn> present+ RobTrainer
14:59:44 <burn> present+ RichardVarn
15:00:05 <Rob_Trainer> Rob_Trainer has joined #vcwg
15:00:08 <manu> present+ ManuSporny
15:00:40 <cwebber2> present+ ChrisWebber
15:00:56 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:01:14 <burn> present+ ChristopherAllen
15:01:24 <burn> present+ ColleenKennedy
15:01:47 <burn> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:01:47 <ChristopherA> ChristopherA has joined #vcwg
15:01:47 <Zakim> Present: DanBurnett, JoeAndrieu, RobTrainer, RichardVarn, ManuSporny, ChrisWebber, ChristopherAllen, ColleenKennedy
15:01:58 <ChristopherA> Good Morning!
15:02:13 <dlongley> present+ DaveLongley
15:02:16 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:02:18 <gkellogg> present+ Gregg_Kellogg
15:02:37 <amigus> amigus has joined #vcwg
15:02:40 <colleen> colleen has joined #vcwg
15:02:55 <colleen> present+
15:05:09 <burn> present+ AdamMigus
15:05:19 <burn> Scribe: amigus
15:05:45 <burn> Topic: Agenda review and Introductions
15:05:50 <cwebber2> q+
15:06:02 <burn> ack cwebber2
15:06:21 <burn> ack cwebber
15:06:52 <amigus> cwebber: I am Chris Webber; I joined because of my interest in distributed identity. I'm here with spec ops
15:07:02 <burn> Topic: Status of publishing UC FPWD
15:07:27 <burn> https://w3c.github.io/vc-use-cases/
15:07:32 <amigus> cwebber: I'm also involved in <missed it> but that is not as part of my spec ops affiliation
15:07:38 <ChristopherA> We discussed last week of having 1 person each week being "re-introduced"
15:07:50 <dlongley> s/<missed it>/Social Web WG
15:07:59 <liam> present+
15:08:01 <amigus> burn: editors have beenworking on the document but i'm not sure of that status. Manu?
15:08:21 <amigus> manu: usecases? greg made the majority of updates
15:08:29 <burn> q?
15:08:30 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/41
15:08:52 <manu> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:08:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/30-vcwg-minutes.html manu
15:09:13 <manu> Meeting: Verifiable Claims Working Group Telecon
15:09:13 <amigus> gkellogg: working though it on PR 41; we are going to publish as FPWD but not ready yet
15:09:49 <amigus> gkellogg: updated the patent URI. we set the publish date <missed it> we can revisit if required
15:10:17 <amigus> gkellogg: we could use the mailing list for continued discussion but there's the issue list in github
15:10:54 <amigus> burn: anyone have any comments? if none editors and chairs will make decisions because it's all administrative
15:11:00 <liam> how to do a first public working draft (long URL sorry) https://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=https://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions2017.html&xslfile=https://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions2017.xsl&docstatus=fpwd-wd-tr&echidna=true
15:11:06 <amigus> gkellogg: I did update the intro to reflect that we're a WG now...
15:11:15 <burn> Topic: Discuss FPWD for Data Model doc
15:11:17 <manu> no other comments than +1 publish!
15:11:49 <burn> ack liam
15:12:10 <amigus> liam: chair must send a publish request and request approval for the shortname
15:12:32 <amigus> gkellogg: yes, got it,  only pointing out that it's administrative
15:13:08 <amigus> gkellogg: we'll target publishing on Tuesday but it's done when its approved and ready..
15:13:22 <burn> Data model: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/
15:13:29 <manu> q+ to mention a few things.
15:13:59 <ChristopherA> Are you asking for this now?
15:14:02 <burn> q?
15:14:05 <amigus> burn: this is the main topic for today; reminder: if you see a major gap like a section, then now is the time to mention that even if the content will be TBD lets just get the section added
15:14:06 <burn> ack manu
15:14:06 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention a few things.
15:14:21 <amigus> manu: a couple of items in the spec:
15:14:38 <manu> First item - remove WebIDL from spec - https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/45
15:14:43 <amigus> manu: first item: there's a PR for it (above)
15:14:50 <burn> ACTION: chairs to send transition request for FPWD for UC doc when gkellog says doc is ready
15:15:37 <burn> q?
15:15:56 <ChristopherA> q+
15:16:08 <amigus> manu: a little contraversial but want to comment out the WebIDL from the spec because it makes browser integeration murkey.
15:16:27 <amigus> manu: <need clarification>
15:16:33 <dlongley> browser tools are designed to work that way -- you need the Web IDL to convert data to/from JS and C++ ... it's not clear that we need or want that kind of rigidity here as its potentially harmful to extensibility
15:16:40 <amigus> manu: second issue: terminology: we need to clean up, I
15:16:46 <SeanBohanSovrin> SeanBohanSovrin has joined #vcwg
15:16:57 <amigus> manu: will suggest changes like in a PR
15:17:17 <amigus> manu: will try to use the word 'entity' mostly
15:17:58 <amigus> manu: we don't talk about the ecosystem; that was on purpose to avoid scope excess but now that things are better defined we might want to add something back.
15:18:40 <amigus> manu: reasoning is to make sure others understand what we're trying to accomplish and that web developers understand what we're doing and the context around it. That includes terminology hence the previous
15:18:54 <burn> ack ChristopherA
15:19:00 <amigus> manu: those are the changes before FPWD; I'll do a PR to get it started.
15:19:06 <manu> Present+ SeanBohan
15:19:15 <amigus> ChristopherA: I have other items so i'll wait
15:19:44 <amigus> burn: quesiton for manu: do you want to make some decision today or is this just discussion at this point?
15:20:02 <amigus> manu: discussion and thoughts from the group is what we want today
15:20:03 <JoeAndrieu> +1 remove web_idl
15:20:22 <burn> q?
15:20:25 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:20:38 <burn> q+ to ask how to avoid bikesheds for terminology
15:20:45 <burn> ack JoeAndrieu
15:20:52 <amigus> manu: first remove webidl, second remove the contentious word 'identity' and use 'entity' instead; third is (see above)
15:21:07 <dlongley> q?
15:21:12 <amigus> joeAndrieu: how do we replace identity with entity? seems like different things...
15:21:15 <manu> q+ to respond to joe and the avoiding bikeshedding comment.
15:21:24 <burn> ack manu
15:21:24 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to joe and the avoiding bikeshedding comment.
15:21:32 <burn> q-
15:22:01 <amigus> manu: the terminology discussion probably is best done offline so that we don't eat all the time in the meeting. we'll set something up
15:22:17 <gkellogg> q+
15:22:23 <amigus> manu: really just want a feel what the group things WRT direction
15:22:23 <burn> q?
15:22:47 <amigus> manu: to address the bikeshedding potential: chairs please call us on bikeshedding when you see it
15:22:47 <burn> ack gkellogg
15:23:24 <dlongley> q+
15:23:29 <burn> ack dlongley
15:23:42 <amigus> gkellogg: there are other specs that use WebIDL without the assumption that it integrates with browsers in a particular way so I don't know if I agree with removing it on that basis because this isn't the only spec that does it (without making the assumption)
15:24:18 <amigus> dlongley: we can obviously use WebIDL but we don't really *need* to use it so its easy to stay away from
15:24:54 <gkellogg> +1 to what dlongley said.
15:24:58 <burn> q?
15:25:04 <amigus> dlongley: we're not defining an interface that one should use a WebIDL for, so we don't need it -- we're jumping the gun including it
15:25:57 <manu> q+ to respond to burn - yes, we want to do that, WebIDL is a very verbose way of doing that.
15:26:06 <burn> ack manu
15:26:06 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to burn - yes, we want to do that, WebIDL is a very verbose way of doing that.
15:26:09 <amigus> burn: manu question: I don't mind us removing any particular syntax or defn language but my concern is that we are still able to be clear about defining the data model and ways that it can be used. people assume we're using JSON-LD only and we want to make it clear that it's just that...
15:26:15 <dlongley> +1 that we want to have multiple syntaxes as examples, -1 to Web IDL as one of those unless really necessary
15:26:43 <amigus> manu: you're right; people think it's JSON-LD only. Maybe we should remove JSON-LD to and just go with JSON
15:26:58 <burn> s/clear that it's just that/clear that it's not just that/
15:27:20 <gkellogg> q+
15:27:25 <amigus> manu: we've opened ourselve up to misinterpretation as a semantic web thing.
15:27:40 <amigus> manu: we could do it will basic examples; it's a lot less verbose than WebIDL
15:27:47 <burn> agree that WebIDL definitions are crazy verbose
15:27:50 <amigus> manu: this might make it look simpler
15:27:59 <amigus> manu:we could externalize the WebIDL defn
15:28:23 <dlongley> also -- if you can express something as JSON, you can define Web IDL for it
15:28:47 <burn> dlongley, I know that and you know that, but that wasn't the concern I raised
15:28:50 <amigus> manu: education like JSON but ecomm/retail and finance use XML..
15:28:53 <ChristopherA> q+ (on this topic, re: kinds of examples)
15:28:53 <cwebber2> what about presenting as "just json" but saying in some note that this can be read as json-ld with an implied context?
15:29:03 <burn> q?
15:29:05 <ChristopherA> q+ on this topic, re: kinds of examples
15:29:20 <burn> ack gkellogg
15:29:23 <amigus> manu: so we could show JSON, JSON-LD and XML too so that everyone sees it in their preferred format
15:29:42 <cwebber2> q?
15:29:46 <cwebber2> q+
15:30:11 <amigus> gkellogg: we are supposed to create a vocabulary so that we aren't building things that aren't local; JSON-LD gives us a solution for that and JSON doesn't.
15:30:38 <amigus> gkellogg: I don't want to lose the ability to do localization right in the name of simplicity
15:31:01 <amigus> gkellogg: XML does allow us to tie terms back to vocab by using namespaces but it does support it.
15:31:37 <burn> ack ChristopherA
15:31:37 <Zakim> ChristopherA, you wanted to comment on this topic, re: kinds of examples
15:31:38 <amigus> burn: admin interupt: there are no issues to discuss in the next item so it was just discussion and we're basically having that discussion now.
15:31:43 <burn> q?
15:32:41 <manu> q+ to point out the JSONFeed discussion and how it relates to uptake.
15:33:11 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to talk about missing sections (not serialization)
15:33:18 <amigus> ChristopherA: I agree with gkellogg. I want to point out to the community that, using schemas, we can have a vocabulary that results in everything being canonical regardless of format. There are other things (OWL?) that supports schema. We could point out that we don't have schema when we use JSON.
15:33:31 <dlongley> +1 to telling that story
15:33:35 <burn> ack cwebber
15:33:51 <amigus> ChristopherA: when we define things that are outside of the schema then it doesn't matter what your encapsulation is
15:34:38 <amigus> ???: we dealt with this previously and came up with a solution which is to use profiles
15:34:44 <dlongley> s/???/ChrisWebber
15:35:35 <amigus> ChrisWebber: people who are averse to JSON-LD we could use an 'implied context' by using a profile type contstruct..
15:35:35 <burn> ack manu
15:35:35 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to point out the JSONFeed discussion and how it relates to uptake.
15:35:47 <amigus> manu: +1 to that
15:35:56 <manu> https://github.com/brentsimmons/JSONFeed/issues/49#issuecomment-303499812
15:35:59 <amigus> manu: it worked in the social web group so we should explore that
15:36:14 <ChristopherA> (I'd like to be in queue when new topics are started)
15:36:40 <engelke> engelke has joined #vcwg
15:37:09 <ChristopherA> We may be even able to get IPLD be the same canonically, which is a format that may have a lot of legs.
15:37:30 <amigus> manu: i want to highlight a new data format called ???; JSON-LD has gotten pushback from the larger community. I'm pointing that out because it will repeat and we have to be careful about how we respond. we can't say 'don't use JSON-LD' but i don't have a crisp answer for how we should respond
15:37:57 <burn> q?
15:38:05 <amigus> manu: so we just need to be careful (in the spec) about how we approach it and ChristopherA's suggestion seems right
15:38:20 <cwebber2> s/ChristopherA's/cwebber's
15:38:36 <ChristopherA> I'd prefer to see 3 examples with each, with XML, JSON-LD, and JSON.
15:38:47 <amigus> burn: any other questions before we go back to the broader 'gap' question
15:39:30 <amigus> ChristopherA: there was a work item that came up in the CG.
15:39:32 <ChristopherA> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W0r6TOaJXGcDP4qOzOIEfSymub4nRSLrBmtBqyDf06I/edit?usp=sharing
15:39:48 <manu> Present+ CharlesEngelke
15:40:08 <ChristopherA> https://bitsonblocks.net/2017/05/17/a-gentle-introduction-to-self-sovereign-identity/
15:40:11 <amigus> ChristopherA: it was an issue WRT other parties that are thinking about claims outside of this group; they seem to have 3 categories when they talk of it:
15:41:02 <amigus> ChristopherA: R3 is a consortium that's doing something with claims and proofs which are attestations of the claims but they have attestations separate from that.
15:41:32 <amigus> ChristopherA: seems like they want 1) claim, 2) proof (by others) of claim and 3) ability to refute a claim
15:42:02 <amigus> ChristopherA: some say that the way we're doing it does already support this but it's not clear to me that it's the case
15:42:15 <dlongley> +1 it would be a good idea to say how each of those concepts map to verifiable claims
15:42:22 <dlongley> in the spec
15:42:25 <amigus> ChristopherA:especially when discussing reputation based systems
15:43:27 <burn> q?
15:43:38 <burn> q+ JoeAndrieu
15:44:06 <burn> ack JoeAndrieu
15:44:06 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to talk about missing sections (not serialization) and to
15:44:40 <amigus> JoeAndrieu: regarding elements and context: we don't have something for presentation of claims i.e. it's issued then presented to an inspector. we don't have something that shows the relationship especially when dealing with multiple claims and disclosure
15:45:00 <amigus> JoeAndrieu: we also need a notion of scope-of-use
15:45:10 <burn> q?
15:45:14 <amigus> JoeAndrieu: i think both are key to addressing privacy
15:45:34 <manu> q+ to ask Joe to raise an issue on the spec for that.
15:45:41 <manu> q+ to ask ChristopherA to raise an issue.
15:45:45 <JoeAndrieu> will do Manu
15:45:45 <burn> ack manu
15:45:45 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask Joe to raise an issue on the spec for that. and to ask ChristopherA to raise an issue.
15:45:57 <amigus> burn: FYI we need to have even empty sections so people can see what's coming...
15:46:25 <amigus> manu: just want to make sure that ChristopherA and JoeAndrieu's comments are added to the Github issue tracker; can you guys add them?
15:46:50 <burn> Topic: Review of issues for Datamodel Document
15:46:52 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc
15:46:57 <ChristopherA> (another example of the 3 in addition to R3s: https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2016/blob/master/final-documents/reputation-toolkit.pdf Assertion Evidence Evaluation)
15:47:12 <SeanBohan_Sovrin_> SeanBohan_Sovrin_ has joined #vcwg
15:47:27 <amigus> burn: any comments from anyone?
15:47:35 <amigus> burn: anything else from you manu?
15:48:12 <amigus> manu: not yet, just the 3 items discussed earlier however, both ChristopherA's and JoeAndrieu's comments aren't addressed and should be
15:48:38 <amigus> manu: actually one other item: we're doing a talk to the ??? next week I'd like to give folks a heads up that we're doing that
15:48:45 <burn> Topic: pull request 38
15:48:46 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/38
15:49:33 <manu> s/???/US Federal Reserve Secure Payments Task Force/
15:49:40 <amigus> burn: JoeAndrieu and amigus submitted comments, we're working through them
15:50:43 <burn> s/through them/through them.  Ask that others review and comment./
15:51:16 <amigus> manu: i've been asked to come talk to the ??? to talk about our work in Charlotte, NC. they launched a task force to make faster payments happen and keeps pace with the rest of the world also better identification for fraud reduction. they're interested in VC, WP and related
15:51:33 <burn> s/???/US Federal Reserve Secure Payments Task Force/
15:51:42 <amigus> manu: please take a look at what I've done and contact me (don't leave comments in the doc)
15:52:01 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:52:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/30-vcwg-minutes.html burn
15:52:08 <amigus> manu: it's a BD, is a 75 minute, keynote with over 100 folks in banking/finance
15:52:33 <burn> Topic: suggestions for next week
15:52:57 <manu> Suggestion: Cover PRs that I will hopefully get to today/tomorrow.
15:52:59 <amigus> burn: ChristopherA brought up introductions and re-introductions which we'll start on next week
15:53:31 <amigus> burn: manu: getting the docs published is top priority; we had a poll in the CG before the WG started so we have stuff
15:53:51 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:53:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/30-vcwg-minutes.html burn
15:54:44 <burn> s/have stuff/already have a list of priorities for discussion to start from/
15:54:50 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:54:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/30-vcwg-minutes.html burn
15:55:10 <ChristopherA> I have posted issue: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/47
15:55:45 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:55:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/30-vcwg-minutes.html burn
16:01:45 <burn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/30-vcwg-minutes.html burn
16:02:48 <burn> rrsagent, bye
16:02:48 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/05/30-vcwg-actions.rdf :
16:02:48 <RRSAgent> ACTION: chairs to send transition request for FPWD for UC doc when gkellog says doc is ready [1]
16:02:48 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/05/30-vcwg-irc#T15-14-50