14:44:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:44:58 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/02-vcwg-irc
14:45:01 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:45:02 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:45:03 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:45:03 <ivan> Date: 2022-11-02
14:45:03 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20221102T110000
14:45:03 <ivan> chair: kristina
14:45:03 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2022-11-02: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20221102T110000
14:49:19 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
14:57:34 <brentz> present+
14:58:41 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
14:59:00 <ivan> present+
15:00:00 <ivan> present+ shigeya
15:00:46 <ivan> present+ manu
15:01:20 <mkhraisha> mkhraisha has joined #vcwg
15:01:23 <ivan> present+ mkhraisha
15:01:53 <cel_> present+
15:02:00 <ivan> present+ dlongley
15:02:12 <ivan> present+ drummond
15:02:46 <ivan> chair brent
15:03:02 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:03:08 <manu> s/chair brent/chair: brent/
15:03:29 <ivan> present+ abramson
15:03:35 <cel_> present- cel_
15:03:47 <cel_> present+
15:04:30 <oliver> oliver has joined #vcwg
15:04:42 <manu> scribe+
15:04:49 <ivan> present+ mccown, davidc, mprorock, cabernet, Phil-ASU, oliver
15:05:06 <ivan> present+ kerri, kristina
15:05:20 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:05:22 <ivan> present+ oliver
15:05:24 <selfissued> present+
15:05:28 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
15:05:38 <kristina> present+
15:05:44 <oliver> scribe+ oliver
15:06:06 <ivan> scribe+ manu
15:06:12 <Will> Will has joined #vcwg
15:06:46 <cabernet> cabernet has joined #vcwg
15:06:47 <oliver> brent: agenda for today, we are looking at
15:06:49 <ivan> present+ juancaballero
15:06:51 <drummond> drummond has joined #vcwg
15:06:53 <cabernet> present+
15:06:58 <drummond> present+
15:07:01 <Phil__ASU> Phil__ASU has joined #vcwg
15:07:04 <oliver> ... some announcements of the beginning, work item status updates, work item ins progress, sd-jwt and data integrity
15:07:11 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
15:07:21 <oliver> ... following a convo issue on holder binding to get some updates
15:07:29 <oliver> ... then finish off the meeting with discussion of issues
15:07:37 <oliver> brent: any comments? request for changes?
15:07:46 <oliver> kristina: postpone holder binding discussion to next week?
15:07:55 <oliver> brent: that is no problem, we can just do our issue discussion today then
15:08:12 <oliver> brent: some announcements, moving forward, we will have meeting next week, no special topic call next week
15:08:22 <ivan> q+
15:08:29 <oliver> ... following week is IIW and we will not have our regular call nor we wil lhave a special topic call
15:08:44 <oliver> ... we are not cancelling meetings in the week of thanksgiving
15:08:55 <oliver> ... pay attention to whatever time the meeting is
15:09:01 <oliver> ... in your local time as best as we can
15:09:10 <oliver> ... we are gonna send out a local time meeting
15:09:18 <brentz> ack ivan
15:09:35 <oliver> ivan: on time changes, in practice, for next week on for europeans it will be everything as normal
15:09:52 <oliver> ... for the whole of winter no time change in japan
15:10:02 <ivan> present+ dlehn
15:10:20 <oliver> brent: regardless what time this meeting is, it is an honor to have our colleagues from japan
15:10:34 <oliver> brent: some concerns have been raised about feelings about lack of inclusion due to some comments about
15:10:44 <oliver> ... like we shouldn't talk about this because the past group talked about this
15:10:51 <oliver> ... or we do not wanna rehash this conversation
15:11:07 <ivan> present+ dwaite
15:11:07 <oliver> ... this caused for some folks in the group to reach out to chairs to ask group to be a bit more inclusive
15:11:21 <oliver> ... since there are folks in this group that didn't participate in earlier conversations
15:11:35 <oliver> ... chairs are operating under the assumptions that none of these comments were done maliciously or aggressive
15:11:45 <kristina> well-said, thank you, Brent
15:11:51 <oliver> ... but want to make folks aware of that and encourage everyone to be inclusive as possible
15:11:59 <oliver> brent: anyone who wants to intro on this call?
15:12:07 <David_Waite> David_Waite has joined #vcwg
15:12:28 <brentz> Topic: Work Item status updates/PRs
15:12:29 <oliver> ... moving on
15:12:35 <manu> q+
15:12:37 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
15:12:37 <oliver> ... first topic, work item status updates and PRs
15:12:40 <marty_reed> marty_reed has joined #vcwg
15:12:45 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
15:12:47 <ivan> present+ martyreed
15:12:51 <oliver> manu: first up on vc data model PRs, we have 4 of them
15:12:55 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
15:13:00 <oliver> ... we had a resolution on issuanceDate and expirationDate
15:13:03 <oliver> ... we have a PR
15:13:13 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/964
15:13:16 <oliver> ... simultanously ivan raised a PR to update vocabularies
15:13:19 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/968
15:13:24 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:13:25 <oliver> ... and they conflict with one another
15:13:31 <DavidC> present+
15:13:33 <ivan> q+
15:13:33 <oliver> ... ivan and mahmut you have to talk to each other
15:13:40 <oliver> ... that is the only thing that keeps those PRs from being merged
15:13:45 <brentz> ack manu
15:13:48 <brentz> ack ivan
15:14:08 <oliver> ivan: my PR  does two things. one yaml is now the language and the other thing it also includes the changes of property names
15:14:12 <oliver> ... should have made that more clear
15:14:21 <oliver> ... as far as i could understand it duplicates what mahmut has done
15:14:24 <oliver> ... apologies for that
15:14:28 <oliver> ... that is where we are
15:14:39 <oliver> manu: that is great because we have more people doing PRs
15:14:46 <brentz> s/mahmut/mahmoud/
15:14:47 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/969
15:14:52 <oliver> manu: next item is 969
15:14:58 <oliver> ... this one is controversial
15:15:05 <oliver> ... one of them is WG member suggesting normative changes
15:15:10 <oliver> ... may want to talk with mateo
15:15:18 <ivan> q+
15:15:24 <oliver> ... other thing is to have a nonTransferable to property to core, which has not reached consensus
15:15:26 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:15:30 <brentz> ack ivan
15:15:31 <oliver> ... expecting PR to be blocked possibly
15:16:02 <manu> s/is WG member/is NOT a WG member/
15:16:02 <oliver> manu: should fix minutes because it is not working member
15:16:12 <oliver> ivan: every member of the WG has the right to create normative changes
15:16:26 <oliver> manu: we are concerened about having non members doing normative changes due to IPR etc.
15:16:31 <shigeya> I'm actually had plan to create PR to remove these complex structures. (wrt multilingual)
15:16:35 <oliver> manu: chairs, staff, we should have a quick chat
15:16:43 <oliver> ... but we want them to be enganging
15:16:46 <shigeya> (haven't had time to realize it..)
15:16:47 <ivan> present+ JoeAndrieu
15:17:14 <oliver> ivan: we should have a timing thing about it, if you don't do that by then, we are closing without any further steps
15:17:19 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/970
15:17:24 <oliver> manu: next item up is PR 970
15:17:43 <oliver> manu: oliver raised a fix to forbid credentialSubjects being string values
15:18:23 <Orie> q+
15:18:48 <ivan> present+ orie
15:18:48 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:18:49 <manu> oliver: I put in JSON-LD section because of specific reasons related to JSON-LD, representing an object that has `id` property as single string that's specific to JSON-LD. Thought it was more appropriate to JSON-LD section, could also put it in credentialSubject section. Why is it needed there, though? One or more properties that are related to subject of credential.
15:19:07 <manu> oliver: It felt a little bit redundant in data model section.
15:19:22 <manu> Orie: It's an improvement, but it is a core data model thing.
15:19:38 <oliver> q+
15:19:45 <dz> dz has joined #vcwg
15:19:51 <brentz> ack Orie
15:20:13 <manu> Orie: In both representations we don't want value part to be a string. I agree with comment on credential subject phrasing being weird, suggest we not conflate adding this requirement to cleaning up that section, but perhaps we can add an issue to revise that section in its entirety, that section is confusing to read. File issue to update credential subject and move to accept PR as is.
15:20:17 <brentz> ack oliver
15:20:42 <Orie> I can implement "sets" with strings....
15:20:43 <manu> oliver: The spec currently says value of credential subject is defined as object that is related to subject of credential -- that's not normative text at the moment, but it could say MUST say, would that fix that issue?
15:20:44 <manu> q+
15:20:49 <brentz> ack manu
15:21:29 <przemek> przemek has joined #vcwg
15:21:30 <oliver> manu: that's it for 970, please provide feedback
15:21:34 <oliver> ... moving on to data integrity
15:21:37 <oliver> scribe+
15:21:45 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/67
15:21:48 <oliver> ... for the last week there was PR open
15:21:51 <oliver> ... PR 67
15:21:56 <oliver> ... that has been done
15:21:59 <ivan> present+ Przemek
15:22:03 <manu> The FPWD ready draft for Data Integrity is here: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/FPWD/2022-11-10/
15:22:29 <oliver> ... ivan, chairs, that document is ready to be published by nov 10
15:22:47 <oliver> ... contains diagrams etc. in the sub directory, please take note of that, when publishing other docs that with the spec
15:22:47 <ivan> +1
15:22:55 <Orie> q+
15:22:59 <brentz> ack Orie
15:23:00 <Kerri> Kerri has joined #vcwg
15:23:01 <oliver> brent: VC-JWT and JWS2020
15:23:10 <oliver> orie: VC-JWT still has PR 11 open
15:23:19 <oliver> ... mike jones request changes and i have responded
15:23:23 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/11
15:23:32 <oliver> ... but there are still changes requested but i believe that those have been addressed
15:23:43 <oliver> ... but i would like to accelerate the pace with improvements to that draft
15:23:47 <oliver> ... additional reviews would help
15:23:51 <oliver> ... that is it for VC-JWT
15:24:08 <oliver> mike: given that poll taken on previous call, there seems to be validFrom and validUntil
15:24:13 <oliver> ... language needs to be updated in the PR
15:24:31 <oliver> ... when to be merged in the vc data model
15:24:36 <mprorock> +1 wait for upstream merge
15:24:43 <oliver> orie: intention was not make any changes, only document what was already required
15:24:44 <mprorock> then correct / update
15:24:53 <oliver> ... i don't thing we should comingle those changes in the PR
15:24:58 <oliver> mike: ok, then i think i can approve
15:25:10 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jws-2020/pull/26
15:25:20 <oliver> orie: let's move on to VC-JWS-2020
15:25:36 <ivan> q+
15:25:44 <oliver> orie: other PR that has been open for quite some time
15:25:45 <brentz> ack ivan
15:25:53 <oliver> ivan: i need advice on that, from orie and chairs
15:26:03 <oliver> ... should i wait for public wg draft for data integrity?
15:26:16 <oliver> ... i could start process for data integrity today or tomorrow morning?
15:26:25 <oliver> ... question to chairs and editors
15:26:39 <oliver> orie: i would not wait and would proceed independendly
15:26:46 <oliver> ivan: ok, agreed. understood
15:26:48 <mprorock> +1 proceed along, then update seperately
15:26:55 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jws-2020/pull/24
15:26:57 <oliver> orie: other issue is PR 24
15:27:03 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jws-2020/pull/24
15:27:03 <oliver> ... this one is regarding context
15:27:19 <oliver> ... overtaken by massive amount of comments on @context discussion
15:27:33 <ivan> s/@context/`@context`/
15:27:38 <manu> q+
15:27:39 <oliver> ... please give comments on PR 24 but we have to wait for @context discussion
15:27:43 <brentz> ack manu
15:27:47 <oliver> manu: comments on future work items
15:28:10 <oliver> ... CCG has prepared VC API to be published as a note
15:28:13 <oliver> ... in coming weeks
15:28:27 <oliver> ... other FPWs published through CCG that built on top of data integerity
15:28:32 <oliver> ... docs are currently prepared
15:28:43 <oliver> ... ECDSA and Edwards curve signature suites
15:28:53 <oliver> ... in coming weeks as well
15:28:55 <mprorock> +1 manu - chairs at CCG will be on lookout
15:29:06 <oliver> brent: did you mean final working group draft?
15:29:23 <mprorock> q+
15:29:31 <brentz>  ack mprorock
15:30:00 <ivan> present+ gabe
15:30:20 <oliver> brent: moving to issue discussion
15:30:23 <brentz> Topic: Issue Discussion
15:30:28 <manu> scribe+
15:30:42 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adiscuss+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:30:56 <manu> brentz: here is the ordered list of issues.
15:31:15 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/887
15:31:26 <manu> brentz: We could spend a while on this, lets time box to 10 minutes.
15:31:45 <manu> brentz: We have had a number of suggestions -- present, assemble, derive, etc.
15:31:57 <manu> brentz: What can we do to move this one forward?
15:31:58 <David_Waite> present+ David_Waite
15:32:02 <manu> q+
15:32:09 <mprorock> q+
15:32:16 <oliver> scribe+
15:32:17 <brentz> ack manu
15:32:26 <oliver> manu: what we can do in these situations?
15:32:42 <Orie> I am coming around to the idea of using "issue" for both "VC" and "VP".
15:32:42 <oliver> ... we collect all the options and make a poll
15:32:49 <Phil__ASU> Has compose been offered yet?
15:32:49 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:32:50 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
15:32:54 <oliver> ... if you had other suggestions then please put it into the issue
15:32:59 <brentz> ack mprorock
15:33:13 <oliver> mprorock: definitely second range choice poll
15:33:15 <manu> mprorock: One thing to note... I'll 2nd rank choice poll, as we work through scopes and other contexts, trace, interop
15:33:16 <mprorock> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-interop/draft/#scopes
15:33:59 <manu> mprorock: Something that plays nicely w/ common usage, in case of credentials issue credentials -- VC API is doing something similar, we should pick naming that would make sense to new developers... new developer onboarding, make sense to them, consider what is used in similar scenarios out in industry.
15:34:09 <brentz> ack JoeAndrieu
15:34:31 <manu> JoeAndrieu: In interest in minimizing logistical overhead, no oppositions to derive -- maybe we can propose that and request people to push back -- and then see if people like it.
15:34:32 <Orie> q+
15:34:36 <brentz> ack Orie
15:34:57 <manu> Orie: One comment on derive, it has additional conflicts w/ selective disclosure schemes where there is a transformation scheme on original credential which is then presented.
15:35:08 <manu> manu: Yes, I'm a -0.5 for derive -- for the reasons Orie said.
15:35:10 <manu> q+
15:35:16 <mprorock> +1 orie - derive makes sense in some ways, but will cause conflicts later with actual "derived" key materials, credentials, subsets, etc
15:35:28 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:35:29 <manu> Orie: There might be ambiguity on that side... that would apply for SD-JWT, BBS JWP and BBS DI
15:35:48 <brentz> ack manu
15:35:48 <Orie> I'm also a -.5 to derive.
15:35:51 <brentz> ack JoeAndrieu
15:35:57 <selfissued>  -1 to "derive", as it's not intuitive usage of the word in context.
15:36:16 <manu> JoeAndrieu: Happy to go to a poll, derive doesn't seem like an easy win. Orie, derive is middle step, not the presentation, this question isn't about act of presenting, doing the thing before presenting.
15:36:22 <Orie> ahh, we are talking about 2 different things then : )
15:36:26 <Orie> both need names :)
15:36:31 <manu> brentz: Ok, we'll see poll coming around.
15:36:42 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/909
15:37:25 <kristina> q+
15:37:27 <smccown> Explaining to non-identity industry people, we often say "create/submit a verifiable credential proof".  It may not be perfect, but it gets the point across.
15:37:44 <oliver> manu: a bunch of proposals ... we can try to run proposals one by one and see how far we can get
15:37:55 <oliver> ... there are some concrete proposals and we can see how people react to that
15:37:56 <brentz> ack kristina
15:37:57 <oliver> brent: fine with that
15:37:58 <manu> brentz: I'm fine w/ running proposals...
15:38:26 <manu> kristina: Discussion at TPAC we need proposals for registries we want, let's come back on what registries we want -- passing how we manage registries wouldn't be actionalble.
15:38:34 <manu> brentz: This is part of vc-extension registry discussion.
15:38:35 <manu> q+
15:38:43 <brentz> ack manu
15:38:52 <oliver> manu: this is specific to VC extension registry. we have an extension registry today.
15:39:01 <mprorock> +1 manu
15:39:10 <oliver> ... working group created one and handed it to the CCG
15:39:16 <mprorock> and the CCG is not the right home for that
15:39:20 <Orie> q+ to note other ccg things.
15:39:27 <selfissued> q+
15:39:30 <oliver> ... it is a concrete thing that is out of date but exists today
15:39:57 <brentz> ack Orie
15:39:57 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to note other ccg things.
15:40:02 <manu> Joe: I don't think we have a registry --
15:40:12 <manu> manu: It exists, the VC 1.0 created it.
15:41:28 <manu> Orie: We should take a inventory of things that need to be in a registry and the things that CCG might want to manage. When W3C looks at CCG and WG, they might not recognize that these are two separate processes... they might thing CCG isn't decision maker. Looking at things like status list and things of that nature. Have the conversation around how to communicate items delegated to CCG for control and what that means.
15:41:35 <mprorock> q+
15:41:38 <manu> Orie: What is means today and what it means tomorrow. That will be helpful to elaborate upon.
15:41:40 <brentz> ack selfissued
15:42:18 <Phil__ASU> This sounds like a good topic for the CCG, that is, who controls a registry and what are the processes by which the operate.
15:42:19 <manu> selfissued: I believe in past discussions in this WG, including at TPAC, there was consensus to extend that we have registries that we should control them. I agree with Joe that a registry that shares name at CCG has no standing and we should decide which registries we're going to have and operate them or delegate to IANA to operate them.
15:42:21 <drummond> +1 to having a registry controlled by this WG.
15:42:24 <brentz> ack mprorock
15:43:23 <Phil__ASU> +1 to an inventory to the registry
15:43:44 <manu> mprorock: CCG Chair Hat on, I believe based on everything I've seen to date, that Manu is correct. VCWG 1.0 created this and transferred management to CCG. I don't think Community Group or Business Group is a place to have normative ramifications. Orie is on to something good, CCG Chairs can have a full dedicated meeting about this -- point by point items that are at CCG that should be controlled as part of VCWG, pointing to IANA and other items -- any
15:43:44 <manu> motions required at CCG so items can transition appropriately to normative body.
15:43:48 <Orie> +1 MikeP we should create clarity and remove uncertainty on this, but we can't ignore previous resolutions from W3C WGs regarding W3C CCG.
15:43:55 <manu> manu: +1 mikep
15:44:10 <manu> brentz: We have had good conversation, what is concrete next step to move forward.
15:44:14 <manu> q+
15:44:14 <mprorock> q+
15:44:25 <brentz> ack manu
15:44:59 <brentz> ack mprorock
15:45:12 <manu> manu: I'm hearing two things -- JoeA's objection, and inventory of things that go into the registry...
15:45:19 <manu> mprorock: We just need a list of repos to get everything handled.
15:45:20 <mprorock> q+
15:45:32 <brentz> ack mprorock
15:46:16 <manu> mprorock: From CCG standpoint, I recommend that we also classify items in inventory, we might have non-registry items planned for FCGS so would be helpful if we have that list, some of that work is in VCWG charter, but there are items like this that are not. We shouldn't limit ourselves when taking that inventory of things to move over from CCG.
15:46:18 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/919
15:46:41 <manu> brentz: Can you walk us through status of this issue, Gabe?
15:46:48 <Orie> q+
15:46:53 <manu> kristina: Gabe's not here.
15:46:59 <brentz> ack Orie
15:47:45 <manu> Orie: There are a lot of credentials where you go to an Issuer where you present credential as evidence to receive a new credential. Evidence property supports some of these use cases, optional property of core data model. I believe this question is about making it clear what relationship should be about evidence property where evidence is itself another VC.
15:48:00 <mprorock> q+
15:48:05 <manu> Orie: You can't refer to evidence using ID if original evidence didn't have ID, how can you refer to first VC when issuing second VC?
15:48:19 <manu> q+ to note dmitri's hashlinking issue overlaps.
15:48:37 <Kerri> q+
15:48:42 <manu> Orie: With version 1.1 we have flexible informative language, but not a lot of concrete guidance to implementers wrt. additional clarity.
15:48:50 <brentz> ack mprorock
15:48:53 <Phil__ASU> q+
15:49:29 <manu> mprorock: There are a few use cases we see in practice, two areas -- verification of information on open web and traceability across borders and regulartory compliance across borders. In agriculture case, cross border trade some is digitized, some on paper.
15:50:03 <Orie> There are a lot of use cases for evidence... I once tried to kill it, and I was shocked by how many people are using it, despite how weekly it was defined in 1.1.... We should invest in providing more clarity regarding the evidence property.
15:50:17 <manu> mprorock: Things where you can point to an image and a signature on that, common use case, also external regulatory standards eFIDO -- exploring putting in evidence or putting in evidence block, types of import credentials. There are things that are outside of JSON/JSON-LD that exist .
15:50:32 <Orie> s/weekly/weakly/
15:50:33 <manu> mprorock: This comes up, be mindful about normative statements around evidence.
15:50:34 <dmitriz> agree, +1 Orie. I was surprised by that, too (by how many people are using 'evidence' despite vague spec)
15:50:34 <brentz> ack manu
15:50:34 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note dmitri's hashlinking issue overlaps.
15:51:02 <brentz> ack Kerri
15:51:05 <mprorock> s/eFIDO/E-Phyto/
15:51:07 <manu> manu: There is overlap w/ work that Dmitri and Phil has been doing in this area.
15:51:12 <dmitriz> the related issue Manu mentioned is https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/831
15:51:38 <dmitriz> er sorry, issue https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/952
15:51:55 <manu> Kerri: We had evidence in open badges for a while, could be a test score, transcript, file, video, some kind of media, demonstrate proof of achievement. Part of openbadges 3.0, we decided to reuse evidence field for this purpose. That is being used like that right now, not that commonly, but it's how its been implemented in the open badges standard.
15:51:58 <brentz> ack Phil__ASU
15:53:05 <manu> Phil__ASU: As Manu pointed out and Kerri noted, frequent use of evidence field, why a particular achievement was made, in context of hashlink approach that Dmitri propsoed and used in related development of credential -- linked claims, evidence using hashlink you're providng proof of pathway and object itself, then that is a useful mechanism to maintain or present something w/ same authority as original credential.
15:53:34 <manu> Phil__ASU: That is a viable mechanism for pointers to these mechanisms, as long as that location is not dynamnically generating things so it breaks hash, supplement claim about an issue that's being asserted.
15:53:47 <manu> brentz: Good discussion, concrete next steps for this issue?
15:54:05 <manu> brentz: We had people point out that linking to credential is one way to do it, where do we go from here
15:54:06 <manu> q+
15:54:12 <brentz> ack manu
15:54:50 <Phil__ASU> Q+
15:54:50 <shigeya> q+
15:55:27 <brentz> ack Phil__ASU
15:55:40 <manu> manu: We could suggest raising a PR for the extension spec.
15:56:15 <manu> Phil__ASU: Myself and Kerri and Dmitri can work on that. Manu's right, there are qualifiers, journalism and journalistic reports -- first person vs. second person to help contextualize the link. We're happy to do that.
15:56:16 <Kerri> +1 to working on examples with Phil & Dmitri
15:56:16 <brentz> ack shigeya
15:56:51 <manu> shigeya: I'm late to file issue/PR for multilingual discussion, I was talking about how I can externalize some of translation maps to external object. I think there is common structure between what we're discussing now and what I'm going to discuss w/ multilingual objects
15:56:56 <manu> manu: Totally agree, shigeya
15:57:24 <manu> shigeya: Trying to create PR for this, will try to rely on part of spec that talks about this external object. This is a good way to use external object.
15:57:48 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/02-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
15:57:52 <manu> brentz: With that we're at time. Thank you to Oliver and Manu for scribing. Always a pleasure to work with each of you. See you next week. Thank you.
15:57:59 <manu> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/02-vcwg-minutes.html manu
15:58:48 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
15:58:48 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brentz, ivan, shigeya, manu, mkhraisha, cel_, dlongley, drummond, selfissued, abramson, mccown, davidc, mprorock, cabernet, Phil-ASU,
15:58:51 <Zakim> ... oliver, kerri, kristina, juancaballero, dlehn, dwaite, martyreed, JoeAndrieu, orie, dmitriz, Przemek, gabe, David_Waite
15:58:51 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:58:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/02-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
15:58:53 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:58:55 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
15:58:55 <RRSAgent> I see no action items