<scribe> scribenick: deiu

<stonematt> scribenic: deiu

<stonematt> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Sep/0004.html

stonematt: quick review now, we have some cleanup to do; the PR is out and we can discuss what comes next

Data model PR Is out

stonematt: we can take a deep breath and smile, thanks all

<ken> Awesome!

stonematt: we do have a few more docs to get out the door, so we'll spend a bit of time on those today. We are behind in terms of publishing. Is Amy around?
... the first note to hit on is test suite publishing.

<rhiaro> I don't remember doing anything on the test suite

stonematt: I see Amy opened a couple of PRs. Is the test suite ready to go? We said that Oct 31 is the deadline and the test suite is ready to go. Do you have anything to add to that Amy?

<burn> Test suite is not a doc, doesn't need publishing

rhiaro: I have only dealt with the use cases and implementation guide.

stonematt: OK, let's go to the implementation guide then.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/58

stonematt: you have a PR opened for the imp-guide with a checklist. Do you need help there?
... we need this today, right?

rhiaro: I don't know for sure. I used today's date.

stonematt: I think we're going to publish what we have, since the expectation was that we're publishing what we had at the beginning of the month. If we publish today we'll give ourselves enough time.
... we'll ask the team contact (he usually joins at the top of the hour) and he can validate the publishing day when he joins

<burn> Since we already voted for publication, all we need is to tell Kaz when it's time. We also need to separately make a group RESOLUTION that the CCG will take over maintenance of the document

stonematt: Looking at the agenda, the next item is use cases.

Use cases

rhiaro: is there anything controversial or is it just conflicts in the PRs?

<burn> We also need a clear RESOLUTION that the CCG will take over all maintenance of the VCDM spec and incubate future versions of the spec.

TallTed: it's mostly formatting, e.g. issues with nesting trees and headings.
... we can avoid creating a huge mess by resolving conflicts before merging.
... I'm not sure how to rename "verifiable claims" to "verifiable credentials"

rhiaro: can you do that today?

TallTed: probably

stonematt: I'm going to assign proper tags to the PRs

<burn> Also, need to clearly state in a RESOLUTION that we explicitly authorize the CCG not only to run the registries in the spec but also to specify any governance details found to be lacking.

stonematt: so we expect to have that done in hours.

TallTed: yes

ken: how can I help review that work? Is it 101 I should be concentrating on?

stonematt: 111 is the one you should proofread now

<stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/111

TallTed: there are some issues with formatting there, sections and bullet lists, etc.

ken: I will work on 111 and try to review 116 after

<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about claims v credentials

JoeAndrieu: what is the current intention w.r.t. claims vs credentials terminology

stonematt: is that addressed in 111, TallTed?

TallTed: It is not addressed yet, I can do the conflicts or do this other thing.

stonematt: do the conflicts so we ca have a clean copy.

JoeAndrieu: so none of the PRs are actually addressing the issue of correcting terminology. Amy can do you do that?

rhiaro: if it's just the case of find and replace...

stonematt: as long as it's in the body of the text and not the group name

JoeAndrieu: take you best pass and we can provide feedback after
... is there any thoughts about the *name* of the document?

<rhiaro> It's not in the short name so I don't see any reason changing the title would be a problem

stonematt: let's ask Kaz if he comes on. It seems a pretty daunting task.
... I'm worried the list of stuff left to do is getting a bit long

TallTed: there are PNG graphics and SVG graphics. What's the deal?

stonematt: kill the SVGs and keep PNG.
... TallTed is resolving conflicts and as soon as that's done, just hit the merge button.

TallTed: I was going to tag rhiaro on the PR once I've finished the conflicts but I can merge if you think that's better.

rhiaro: I don't mind. If someone wants to review, say so now, otherwise we'll go ahead and merge.

<ken> +1 to merge and review after

JoeAndrieu: I say merge early and review after, since we have a lot of outstanding PRs.
... the current definition for "verifier" is really wrong. I'm not sure where to fix this.

<TallTed> <dt>Verifier</dt>

<TallTed> <dd>The <a>entity</a> verifying a claim about a given subject.

<rhiaro> all of the terms were pulled directly from the data model

<rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: if you ping me the correct dfn I can fix it

stonematt: TallTed put the right one in IRC
... is the doc you're working on referencing the right definition?

JoeAndrieu: rhiaro will deal with it after TallTed

stonematt: Once TallTed is done with the merge, we'll do the typo check and other feedback. What happens if we find something, since rhiaro is about to finalize the snapshot.
... thanks rhiaro and TallTed

<JoeAndrieu> btw, I have a draft resolution based on Dan's request

stonematt: I'll start with the first resolution.
... [reading the three comments from burn]
... you have a draft resolution based on burn's request?

JoeAndrieu: it might be better to do them separately.

stonematt: let's say the data model spec is one, the registry is another, and the CCG taking over the notes is the last one

[stonematt and JoeAndrieu reading proposed resolution texts in the background]

<stonematt> there are 4 active repos w/ published documents: 1) Data Model, 2) Use Cases, 3) Test Suite, 4) Implementation Guide

<burn> Move or copy; not sure moving is allowed

stonematt: the first resolution is about changing ownership of repos, and the second is about the registries
... we want all four to continue living and being dynamic

<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Credentials Community Group will take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials Data Model spec, Verifiable Credentials implementation guide, test-suite, use case document, and incubate future versions of the same.

<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verificable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials Data Model spec, Verifiable Credentials implementation guide, test-suite, use case document, and incubate future versions of the same.

<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verificable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials documents: Data Model spec, Implementation Guide, Test Suite, and Use Case document, and to incubate future versions of the same.

<JoeAndrieu> PROPOSED: We the Verificable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials documents: Data Model spec, Implementation Guide, Test Suite, and Use Case document, and to incubate future versions of the same.

<yancy> +1

<ken> +1

<JoeAndrieu> +1

<deiu> +1

<stonematt> +1

<Dudley> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<oliver> +1

<brent> +1

<TallTed> +q

<DavidC> +1

<TallTed> +1

<TallTed> -q

<burn> +1

RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials documents: Data Model spec, Implementation Guide, Test Suite, and Use Case document, and to incubate future versions of the same.

stonematt: let's do a similar one for the running & governance of the registries

<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries in the spec and to specify any governance details found to be lacking.

<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries in the spec and to specify any additional necessary governance details.

<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries describee in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model spec and to specify any additional governance details as necessary.

<ken> describee to described

<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries describee in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification and to define any additional governance details as necessary.

<ken> +1

<JoeAndrieu> PROPOSED: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries described in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification and to define any additional governance details as necessary.

<TallTed> +1

<JoeAndrieu> +1

<deiu> +1

<stonematt> +1

<brent> +1

<burn> +1

<Dudley> +1

<DavidC> +1

<yancy> +1

<ken> +1

<rhiaro> +1

RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries described in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification and to define any additional governance details as necessary.

<Dudley> +q

stonematt: thank you everyone!

<oliver> +1

Dudley: I just noticed we got a typo "Verifiable" in the first proposal

<JoeAndrieu> s/Verfiable/Verifiable/

stonematt: we still have a couple more topics on the agenda. Let's start with DavidC, then burn, then have an open discussion

<DavidC> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x8xWzo_qR6GuZ4jF1jlYKGZd09yBLhnL/edit

DavidC: I think everybody can see that document
... this is about the Response to DCMS Digital Identity: Call for Evidence
... it's about improving digital identity in the UK. I've produced draft answers to 20/21 items
... VC is exactly the right solution for them. This is a public response, we don't want it to be private.
... they have a few examples of needs, but our list of use cases is much longer. We're ahead of the game and can provide a lot of use cases.
... there's a couple of places where I would like examples from people here.
... I would also like a few more examples for the pain points. Any comments so far?

stonematt: let's try to keep this within a 15 min limit? Maybe quickly go through each of them and ask for volunteers.

<ken> David's document is not editable or commentable.

stonematt: we can do this as an aside, but are we changing the short name of the spec? If so, you'll have to change the URL in your doc, DavidC. I think it will be vc-use-cases

DavidC: I'm really looking for examples in the first 3 points. If people could just add some in the next few days, it would be great.

ken: the document is not editable nor can we comment

<DavidC> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8xWzo_qR6GuZ4jF1jlYKGZd09yBLhnL/view?usp=sharing

stonematt: there might be a hidden setting you can toggle
... try to find the Google version, not the docx.

<ken> The second link is also not editable.

<stonematt> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TO2CnpVN3-kEo5Xuwuw7CzCq8Ml3zlqdFbp5IbCrlyQ/edit?usp=sharing

<ken> This link works to edit.

<stonematt> use the doc from stonematt

DavidC: if people want to contribute, are you OK putting your name in the doc so it gains more weight?
... can we have a resolution saying that the VCWG has read the doc and we'll provide answers to those questions?

<Justin_R> 1+

stonematt: is there precedence for WGs doing things like these in general? Signing our group name?

<burn> Working groups can make statements as a group, but make sure there is consensus for it

Justin_R: if we're going to do something like this, I'm not comfortable with it being published with the group's name. If there's anything from this group, I'd rather see it done signed by individuals with a stated association with the WG, stating their expertise.

stonematt: DavidC, so what if we each sign our name?

<Dudley> +1

DavidC: I'm just worried about timing
... we can add at the beginning that the following list of people have contributed.

Justin_R: if you were against it while the group quickly put their name on a doc, that would be bad.
... this document is not part of the SDO process nor the activities in the group's charter. I don't see why we're doing this as a WG.

<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention timing issues

<oliver> +1 (justin)

Justin_R: in terms of process and propriety, it would be much better if individuals would opt in to have their name listed.

<deiu> +1 too

DavidC: how about saying "the following members of VCWG..."

Justin_R: this group is not here to create opinions and this document is way out of our charter

DavidC: that makes sense. It would be much nicer if the UK gov would support our work. It's about marketing our group to the UK gov to show them how it answers some of their needs.

stonematt: it seems we don't need a resolution after all. If you feel like contributing to this document, please put your name in the list.

TallTed: I would suggest you finalize the text of the document and publish the link on the mailing list to see who's interested.
... add a deadline.

JoeAndrieu: more people would like to support you DavidC than people who will have bandwidth for it in the next week

DavidC: I'll send it to the list them, with the deadline set for 9am GMT on Sunday morning.

stonematt: thanks DavidC, it's important to get critical mass for adoption of our work.
... next item on the list is What's Next?

TPAC celebrate

burn: We've all worked very hard, as it's been a stressful last couple of months. It would be a shame to just end the group like this. I'm thinking it would be nice to have a party and get together during TPAC.
... I would like to hear some opinions about what people might like to do and where.

<deiu> +1 to party!

<JoeAndrieu> +1 to party

burn: the DID WG meetings are not scheduled yet. Right now our efforts have been on getting the emails out for W3C members to join the DIDWG. Our plan is to send out request for topics for the agenda. Brent already has an agenda outline but we're still waiting before we send it out. It will go out towards the end of this week though.

<ken> +1 to dinner/party

burn: if anyone has specific suggestions, send them to me by email, otherwise I'll arrange it.

<DavidC> -1 because I wont be there (only joking)

stonematt: I regret not being able to make it, otherwise I'd be +1'ing the proposal.

<Dudley> +1 to Sun,Mon,Tues or Wed

stonematt: next topic is Future Facing.

Future Facing

stonematt: the end of our formal charter is here. The data model doc is out, we all recognize that the charter was very narrowly scoped, which limited our discussions. As we open the next chapter of this work, we'll take the discussions to the CCG.
... I thought it would be nice to start thinking about what we want to do from here. People mentioned lack of protocol, technical issues, wallets, repositories, etc.

JoeAndrieu: the CCG has fostered open conversations for what comes after VCs and DIDs, as we start laying the ground. Kim mentioned secure data hubs which led to conversions at RWoT.
... there's also a lot of conversations about what we do with agents and wallets, both in terms of terminology but also protocols.
... we look forward to incubating that dialogue.

stonematt: I have a related (tactical) question: who is planning to go to the CCG and is planning to drive this work forward?

<DavidC> I will

<ken> I will

<oliver> i will

burn: I am planning to continue. It's very important work.

stonematt: are we going to continue having CCG calls after this? What does the schedule look like?

burn: there is no decision yet, we'll discuss call times at TPAC. One option is to take over this slot, another option is Thursday.
... probably not for 2h at the same time as this slot though.

<brent> +1 to not 2 hours :)

burn: but this is not my decision.

<oliver> +1 to not 2 hours

DavidC: it's about the access to the CCG. It's not as good as for this group.

JoeAndrieu: when was the last time you tried DavidC? There have been some significant upgrades re. network connectivity from our host.

DavidC: people complained about not being able to hear me. Not sure if it was just the software.

stonematt: is the CCG meeting next week or will it be canceled because of TPAC?

JoeAndrieu: I am going to TPAC, so it's likely it will be canceled.

burn: I am assuming we will also be canceling this call next call. Even if the DIDWG ends up taking this slot today, I will suggest we take some recovery time off after TPAC (and other f-2-f meetings).
... I don't expect people to be doing any work right after a face-2-face.

<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to have a sleep-in and recover meeting

burn: it would be nice to decide about that before we end the call today.

<Dudley> +1 to sleep-in it is 1:26am here..

Last Call

burn: I would not suggest two hours for that final day in September anyway. Let's assume that today is our last call, so as a last agenda item, I would like to have people talk about their experiences if they wished to

<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say thanks

DavidC: I would like to express my thanks to the two chairs and to Manu for all their hard work.

JoeAndrieu: I want to also say thanks. I felt extremely welcomed and felt that I was able to contribute.

<kaz> * Request for AC reviews from the VCWG participants

<kaz> * VC use case document's new shortname (part of agendum 5 above)

<kaz> * Joint discussions at TPAC with WoT (even though the VCWG itself will not meet at TPAC 2019)

<kaz> * Possible extension/rechartering for maintenance work (and some more)

kaz: I wanted to check on a few points though some of those topics were already discussed during the first hour (please see above).
... the PR has been published and we have 9 responses from AC reps. Please ask your AC rep friends to respond.

<burn> +1 to responding in favor of the VCDM spec being published as a Recommendation

kaz: re. the new short name vc-use-case, we need to make a resolution for this name.

stonematt: we have not made a resolution about the short name, we'll fix that right now

<Zakim> rhiaro, you wanted to ask kaz what publication date we should put on the implementation guide and use cases NOTEs?

rhiaro: this questions is about the implementation guide, what date should we use?

kaz: re. the short name we'll have to wait until TPAC is over (two weeks from now)

<rhiaro> So 2019-09-24 for both?

kaz: publication resumes on the 24th

<rhiaro> or just for use cases? Can implementation guide be earlier?

burn: rhiaro just needs a date for the document.

<DavidC> question. Will the new name be /VC-use-cases/ or /vc-use-cases/

kaz: I would like to the talk to the webmaster, but we should be able to publish on the 24th

<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the shortname "vc-use-case".

<rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: use-cases plural?

<JoeAndrieu> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the shortname "vc-use-cases".

kaz: it should be similar to the github repo name, "vc-use-cases"

<TallTed> drop "To"

<JoeAndrieu> PROPOSAL: Rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the shortname "vc-use-cases".

<TallTed> +1

<deiu> +1

<stonematt> +1

<Dudley> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<brent> +1

<ken> +1

<oliver> +1

<burn> +1

<yancy> +1

<JoeAndrieu> +1

<DavidC> +1

RESOLUTION: Rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the shortname "vc-use-cases".

kaz: now about the joint discussions at TPAC with WoT (even though the VCWG itself will not meet at TPAC 2019)
... in the joint discussions between DID and WoT WGs
... it would be better to invite you all to the WoT meeting on Thursday or Friday.

burn: if anyone has conflicts please contact kaz

kaz: now to the last point, extending the VCWG by 2 months to finish the REC transition. And also for maintenance work after that.

stonematt: we had 2 resolution earlier about CCG picking up the work once VCWG finishes

kaz: I'll talk with plh about it then
... I was wondering about people's interest in protocol work, etc., so there might be other topics in addition to maintenance work

burn: there are people who are interested but there is a timing issue because of the DID work
... this work was controversial when it started, so my personal opinion is that it would be better to wait at least one year or wait for the DID WG. Of course, the work can be incubated in the CCG.

kaz: what about the 2 month extension for finalizing the REC transition?

burn: does the group need to exist when the REC comes out? plh told me that isn't the case.

kaz: I'll get back to plh and have another discussion then.

(some more discussion about the groups' opinions)

burn: so kaz, the answer is no. Thank you.
... a few people thanked the chairs, but I would like to thank the group.
... I really appreciate the group's willingness to get things done.
... It's very important for the world to see there is a standard around the work we're doing. Having a version 1 is really important. There's a difference between "almost having it" and actually "having it".
... there's been a lot of people who have contributed, so I appreciate the effort from each and every one of you. I'm looking forward to working with you in the DIDWG.

ken: I wanted to thank the chairs and the group for welcoming a latecomer to the party and to support ZKP.

stonematt: I would like to echo burn's comment about having v1.0 but also to pick up on JoeAndrieu's comment about this being my first experience with a W3C WG. It has been very rewarding, people can bring a lot of passion but can also move forward.
... I hope this can be replicated in the DIDWG and we can take it to the CCG.
... Also, thank you kaz for being our team contact and for helping us along the way.

<burn> +1 re kaz. Thank you, thank you, thank you

<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to appreciate the group's hard work and great contributions again

kaz: thank you very much to everyone for your hard work and great contributions, it was my pleasure.

oliver: also a latecomer, thank you all for welcoming me, I really appreciate it.

stonematt: all right everyone, congratulations!

<JoeAndrieu> Congratulations, all! Thanks for the great work!

stonematt: I think this is the end of the call and of the VCWG. We'll keep an eye on the pending PRs and publications. Thank you thank you thank you.

burn: bye all and thanks again!

<stonematt> bye!