15:52:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:52:12 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/08-vcwg-irc
15:52:12 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:52:13 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:52:21 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:52:21 <ivan> Date: 2023-03-08
15:52:21 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20230308T110000
15:52:21 <ivan> chair: brent
15:52:21 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-03-08: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20230308T110000
15:53:31 <ivan> present+
15:58:06 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> Paul_Dietrich_GS1 has joined #vcwg
15:58:10 <brent_> present+
15:59:21 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> Brent, is there a different zoom link?  Im on with only one person.
15:59:53 <ivan> present+ Paul_Dietrich_GS1
16:00:00 <ivan> present+ shigeya
16:00:37 <ivan> present+ natran
16:00:39 <kgriffin-gleif> kgriffin-gleif has joined #vcwg
16:00:52 <ivan> present+ griffin
16:01:08 <Will> Will has joined #vcwg
16:01:09 <ivan> present+ mircea
16:01:31 <ivan> present+ will
16:01:43 <Phil-ASU> Phil-ASU has joined #vcwg
16:01:54 <Phil-ASU> present+
16:01:55 <dlongley> present+
16:02:01 <manu> present+
16:02:01 <ivan> present+ manu, Phil-ASU, elfors
16:02:11 <ivan> regrets+ kristina
16:02:34 <ivan> present+ dmitri
16:03:16 <mirceanistor> mirceanistor has joined #vcwg
16:03:54 <ivan> oresent dlehn
16:03:54 <ivan> present+ dlehn
16:03:57 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
16:03:57 <Orie> present+
16:03:57 <ivan> s/oresent dlehn//
16:03:57 <ivan> present+ orie
16:03:57 <mirceanistor> present+
16:04:09 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> scribe+
16:04:29 <bumblefudge_> bumblefudge_ has joined #vcwg
16:04:35 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
16:04:35 <dmitriz> present+
16:05:00 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> brent: agenda is work item proposal, status updates and PRs.  Finish with Issue discussion as time permits
16:05:01 <ivan> present+ jandrieu
16:05:21 <bumblefudge_> present+
16:05:28 <ivan> present+ kerri
16:05:28 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> brent: introductions
16:05:34 <Gregory_natran> Gregory_natran has joined #vcwg
16:05:44 <Kerri_Lemoie> Kerri_Lemoie has joined #vcwg
16:05:48 <Kerri_Lemoie> present+
16:06:04 <bumblefudge_> mircea
16:06:11 <gregory_natran_> gregory_natran_ has joined #vcwg
16:06:17 <brentz> Topic: Work Item Proposals
16:06:20 <manu> q+ to "introduce" "VC Specs Dir" after introductions.
16:06:42 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:06:44 <kgriffin-gleif> q+ PROPOSAL: The VCWG will adopt Securing Verifiable Credentials using Authentic Chained Data Containers. as a work item using the short name vc-acdc, and move https://weboftrust.github.io/vc-acdc/ to the VCWG as an editor’s draft.
16:06:53 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> brent: work item proposals. This is to round out the body of work we attempt to complete and then feature freeze.
16:06:55 <TallTed> present+
16:07:09 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:07:24 <bumblefudge_> q+ to demonstrate the syntax
16:07:24 <bumblefudge_> q-
16:07:24 <brentz> ack manu
16:07:24 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to "introduce" "VC Specs Dir" after introductions.
16:07:25 <shigeya> q+ Multilingual
16:07:35 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-specs-dir/
16:07:55 <ivan> q?
16:07:57 <kgriffin-gleif> q+ to PROPOSAL: The VCWG will adopt Securing Verifiable Credentials using Authentic Chained Data Containers. as a work item using the short name vc-acdc, and move https://weboftrust.github.io/vc-acdc/ to the VCWG as an editor’s draft.
16:08:01 <TallTed> q+ shigeya to discuss "Multilingual"
16:08:09 <TallTed> q- Multilingual
16:08:30 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> manu: Announcement over email.  VC specifications directory pulled in.  Open to take for a test run, This is experimental. Question to group. Was this problematic or should we start adding PRs.
16:08:31 <ToddSnyderGS1> ToddSnyderGS1 has joined #vcwg
16:08:46 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask that an example JSON file be shown in the "how to register" section
16:08:47 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> manu: Request to the other chairs to redirect other registries to this directory. Looking for guidance.
16:08:52 <ToddSnyderGS1> present+
16:08:52 <ivan> present+ snyder
16:09:07 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> q?
16:09:09 <brentz> ack kgriffin-gleif
16:09:09 <Zakim> kgriffin-gleif, you wanted to PROPOSAL: The VCWG will adopt Securing Verifiable Credentials using Authentic Chained Data Containers. as a work item using the short name vc-acdc,
16:09:10 <dwaite> dwaite has joined #vcwg
16:09:10 <ivan> present+ dwaite
16:09:13 <Zakim> ... and move https://weboftrust.github.io/vc-acdc/ to the VCWG as an editor’s draft.
16:09:24 <dwaite> present+
16:09:49 <ivan> present+ smccown
16:09:58 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> kgriffen-gleif:  send a proposal to the group for VC-ACDC.  PROPOSAL: move the draft for VC-ACDC to editors draft.
16:10:19 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
16:10:25 <JoeAndrieu> q-
16:10:28 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> brent: Work item adoptions. Must be on the mailing list for a week, Must be in scope of the charter  Must have 3 parties endorsing.
16:10:32 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:10:33 <ivan> present+ davidc
16:10:38 <DavidC> present+
16:10:44 <smccown> present+
16:10:48 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> brent: believes that the three steps for the work items have been addressed
16:10:54 <Orie> q+
16:11:05 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> q?
16:11:14 <brentz> ack Orie
16:11:31 <manu> q+ to ask on how we're handling normative references in the specification?
16:11:52 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> Orie: understand the process around rough consensus for the work item.  Wants to understand how much regular group work time will be spent on this. What is the expectation for work time in the group?
16:12:08 <ivan> q+
16:12:26 <andres> andres has joined #vcwg
16:12:30 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> brent: chairs recognize there are a lot of work items.  They will focus on work items that are progressing and don't expect to spend a lot of time on this item.
16:12:36 <andres> present+
16:12:37 <brentz> ack manu
16:12:37 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask on how we're handling normative references in the specification?
16:13:06 <oliver> oliver has joined #vcwg
16:13:11 <oliver> present+ oliver
16:13:22 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> manu: question to spec editors.  Has normative references to other specifications not in this group.  One thing required to move along the track is stable references to specifications.
16:13:30 <brentz> W3C guidelines for normative references: https://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references
16:13:46 <kgriffin-gleif> q+ to repsond to manu
16:14:05 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> manu: How much will this specification need to pull in this other work.
16:14:21 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> manu: We will need to address this in candidate specification
16:14:24 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> q?
16:14:30 <brentz> ack ivan
16:15:29 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> ivan: Kevin, be prepared for the horizontal reviews for this specification as well. It will need internationalization and other experts.  This will take working group time.  The other thing is the CR phase as we will have a testing environment. This will include tests and implementations.
16:15:39 <brentz> ack kgriffin-gleif
16:15:39 <Zakim> kgriffin-gleif, you wanted to repsond to manu
16:15:44 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> ivan: these are all to be factored in.
16:15:47 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> ?
16:15:50 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> q?
16:16:19 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> kgriffin-gleif: regarding the work, this is a transformation effort.
16:16:53 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> kgriffin-gleif: regarding related specifications, its proceeding with Sam Smith in IETF.  They fully expect to continue to move them forward
16:17:09 <manu> +1, thank you for the response kgriffin, that addresses my concerns (they will be standards-track at IETF in time and normatively referenced)
16:17:28 <manu> q+
16:17:30 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> brent: See the guidlines for writing normative references in the chat
16:17:31 <ivan> q+
16:17:37 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> q?
16:17:45 <brentz> ack manu
16:18:22 <ivan> present+ cabernet
16:18:30 <cabernet> cabernet has joined #vcwg
16:18:32 <cabernet> present+
16:18:50 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> manu: Offer advice.  Its a good answer to reference these normative specs from IETF.  The danger is that the work is in the group and published as a draft.  If this group goes into maintenance mode before IETF completes, this may get stuck in limbo.
16:19:23 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> manu: other option is that this work doesn't have to be done in this group. But it would be good to have input from this group for the transformation rules.
16:19:37 <brentz> ack ivan
16:19:44 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> manu: can the work in IETF be done in time to make sure it doesn't end up in limbo.
16:20:47 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> ivan: its possible to work towards a working group note which would reduce the severity of the normative references requirement. but this needs to be decided between now and the first working group draft.
16:20:53 <kgriffin-gleif> thank you for the feedback Manu and Ivan.
16:21:24 <brentz> PROPOSAL: The VCWG will adopt Securing Verifiable Credentials using Authentic Chained Data Containers. as a work item using the short name vc-acdc, and move https://weboftrust.github.io/vc-acdc/ to the VCWG as an editor’s draft.
16:21:30 <kgriffin-gleif> +1
16:21:37 <Orie> -1
16:21:47 <andres> 0
16:21:55 <JoeAndrieu> 0
16:21:56 <DavidC> 0
16:22:00 <Kerri_Lemoie> 0
16:22:02 <shigeya> 0
16:22:03 <Will> 0
16:22:03 <manu> +0 (supportive of the work happening, will not be able to contribute to the work nor plan to use it)
16:22:04 <smccown> 0
16:22:04 <dwaite> 0
16:22:05 <cabernet> -1
16:22:07 <dlongley> +0
16:22:09 <brentz> +1
16:22:14 <ivan> 0
16:22:23 <Phil-ASU> 0
16:22:23 <oliver> 0
16:22:25 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> 0
16:22:26 <gregory_natran_> 0
16:22:37 <ToddSnyderGS1> 0
16:22:42 <TallTed> -0.5 I'm concerned that we may not have enough resources for already existing work items
16:22:50 <ivan> present+ awhitehead
16:23:03 <Orie> Reason for my -1 is that I cannot contribute to the work, and I am concerned it will reduce contribution to other work items, which I am required to contribute to.
16:23:45 <Orie> I would also like to see more +1's which would indicate that there will be more support / contribution / editing for the work item.
16:23:48 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> brent: at this point we don;t have consensus. Recommendation to engage with the folks that voted -1 or 0.
16:23:50 <ivan> present+ butters
16:24:22 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention both time constraints and standards
16:24:32 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> brent: recognizes concerns about the amount of work but would rather that concern not be used as a reason to vote no on any particular proposal.
16:24:35 <dlongley> +1 to brent's comments on not voting -1 on any particular work item due to number of work items
16:24:35 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> q?
16:24:37 <brentz> ack shigeya
16:24:37 <Zakim> shigeya, you wanted to discuss "Multilingual"
16:25:13 <manu> q+ to suggest a PR for multilingual support via external mapping file.
16:25:21 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> shigeya: want to propose multilingual support. Not sure it needs to be proposed as a work item if its already in the charter.  Doesn't have a complete proposal at this moment but is willing to do the work.
16:25:41 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> brent: believes there are issues open on this.
16:25:42 <brentz> ack JoeAndrieu
16:25:42 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention both time constraints and standards
16:26:00 <ivan> q+
16:26:28 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> JoeAndrieu: speak in favor of ACDC eventually being a VC standard both with the feature freeze and the normative references.
16:26:32 <brentz> ack manu
16:26:32 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest a PR for multilingual support via external mapping file.
16:26:56 <Orie> I also agree with Daniel Hardman's comment on the list, that the work can progress regardless of adoption by this working group.
16:27:02 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> manu: +1 to Joe. Need good examples for how transformations can be done, but feeling pressure of time constraints.
16:27:26 <kgriffin-gleif> q+ to ask a process question
16:27:52 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> manu: +1 to multilingual support.   What shigeya has previously proposed was a great example. Effectively using a translation file that allows a credential to be linked to a translation file.
16:28:13 <brentz> ack ivan
16:28:49 <Phil-ASU> Sounds like a mic issue
16:29:42 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> ivan: in favor of shigeyas work. From a formal point of view there is no need for a resolution on a work item. Its something we must deliver in the charter.
16:29:50 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> scribe-
16:29:52 <dmitriz> scribe+
16:30:01 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> Thanks dmitriz
16:30:01 <brentz> ack kgriffin-gleif
16:30:03 <Zakim> kgriffin-gleif, you wanted to ask a process question
16:30:23 <dmitriz> kgriffin-gleif: process question. If I was to amend the proposal, re ACDC, could that later be amended to change the language?
16:30:51 <dmitriz> ... for example, if we wanted to take Ivan's advice and introduce it as a note, which would alleviate some of the workload concerns. Could we then say "the work's progressed far enough, let's make it normative"
16:31:12 <dmitriz> brentz: there is a distinction between a Note and a Recommendation that is not clear if you're not deeply entrenched in a W3C process
16:31:38 <dmitriz> ... a Note is any statement made by a WG, doesn't necessarily reflect consensus. In the past, it wasn't uncommon to see a Note published, and then have the Note become a REC track document
16:31:47 <dmitriz> ... recent W3C clarification recommended that not be the way to do things.
16:32:11 <dmitriz> ... it would be appropriate to publish a Note that says, here is ACDC, here's the transformation to have it match the VC Data Model
16:32:19 <dmitriz> ... that would work, would not prohibit a later REC track document
16:32:22 <ivan> +1 to Brent
16:32:25 <kgriffin-gleif> Thank you, Brent.
16:32:26 <dmitriz> ... I hope that clarifies the options a bit more
16:32:48 <dmitriz> ... so, you wouldn't produce a Note that says "this will be REC track, it's a Note for now"
16:33:03 <dmitriz> ... so, your proposal is not off the table, chairs are happy to give you more time to drum up more support, to try and address concerns
16:33:03 <dmitriz> kgriffin-gleif: thanks
16:33:07 <dmitriz> brentz: any other proposals for new work items?
16:33:12 <manu> q+
16:33:35 <dmitriz> manu: not a proposal, just circulating
16:33:37 <brent_> brent_ has joined #vcwg
16:33:45 <manu> Work item suggestion: ECDSA Cryptosuite -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2023Mar/0014.html
16:33:49 <andres> q+
16:33:49 <brent_> q?
16:33:52 <brent_> ack manu
16:34:13 <dmitriz> ... I wanted to highlight the work item suggestion that went out to the mailing list on the ECDSA Cryptosuite. Reasoning for it is - since we have withdrawn the work for JWS2020, which had support for ECDSA, now we don't have one
16:34:30 <dmitriz> ... ECDSA is important for many hardware support for crypto operations (FIPS compliant)
16:34:40 <ivan> q+ to make steps on withdrawing jws2020
16:34:52 <Orie> VC-JWT has supported ECDSA and many other registered algorithms in the IANA registry.
16:34:54 <dmitriz> ... which only leaves ECDSA for elliptic curves. This will change in the next couple of years, but for the moment, it's our only option
16:35:17 <dmitriz> ... in terms of how much work this will be - not that much more work. we already have the EddSA crypto suite. so ECDSA is just switching out a couple of algorithms.
16:35:26 <dmitriz> ... the spec so far has been written to align with the Data Integrity specs
16:35:32 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
16:35:34 <kristina> present+
16:35:42 <dmitriz> ... if you're an org that believes you'll need hardware encryption support, consider signing the letter of support
16:35:45 <manu> Letter of support for ECDSA: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wcEg1P3AXOF0tUwzgNo_2IDLC_vBJNEGJRg_5JfprRM/edit
16:36:07 <dmitriz> ... chairs, we'll plan to bring this in front of the group once we feel there's adequate signatures
16:36:12 <dmitriz> brentz: thank you for heads up
16:36:14 <Orie> If you plan on using URDNA2015 with ECDSA, you will need this "data integrity proof suite".... if you plan to use VC-JWT, you can continue to use ES256, ES384 etc...
16:36:21 <dmitriz> ... if there are no more work item proposals, we can move to PRs
16:36:26 <brent_> ack andres
16:36:48 <dmitriz> andres: wanted to highlight VC JSON Schemas proposals that went out to the list
16:36:54 <DavidC>  q+
16:37:00 <dmitriz> ... which is, to adopt the work item to improving the VC JSON Schema spec, which has been worked on by the CCG
16:37:03 <kristina> present
16:37:21 <brent_> ack ivan
16:37:21 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to make steps on withdrawing jws2020
16:37:23 <kristina> zakim, who is present?
16:37:23 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, kristina.
16:37:35 <bumblefudge_> present+ kristina
16:37:42 <dmitriz> ivan: before we forget - JWS2020 has been withdrawn, so we have to make steps by re-issuing the draft and making its status clear (that it's been withdrawn)
16:37:45 <Orie> +1 Ivan, we need to do administrative changes.
16:37:59 <brent_> ack DavidC
16:38:13 <dmitriz> DavidC: this is about the document that Mark (?) and myself has produced, an example of the 'evidence' property
16:38:25 <dmitriz> ... briefly presented here, and in the CCG. neither group has adopted it yet. is there interest in this group?
16:38:34 <dmitriz> ... or whether we should get it adopted as a CCG work item
16:38:58 <dmitriz> brentz: good question, jump on queue if you have opinion. mine is: if we have an extension point for the spec, I hope we have something normative to point to
16:39:02 <brent_> q?
16:39:17 <dmitriz> ... not seeing anyone on the queue. So, these are additional possible work items.
16:39:35 <kristina> i think davidC item belongs in the new directory
16:39:48 <dmitriz> DavidC: I don't think it's a Work Item as such; it's under existing charter. It can just be a PR that's the body of the current document, could go as an annex to the VC data model, or in the Evidence section as an example
16:40:01 <dmitriz> brentz: I leave it to you to determine how best to move forward
16:40:05 <dmitriz> DavidC: thanks
16:40:07 <manu> q+ to ask the group what they thik about render? :P
16:40:15 <brent_> ack manu
16:40:15 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask the group what they thik about render? :P
16:40:26 <dmitriz> q+ to more comments about render
16:40:32 <Orie> q+
16:40:34 <kristina> does the directory has to point to a URL or can have a specific text?
16:40:38 <dmitriz> manu: question to the group - what do people think about the 'render' property for the core spec
16:40:55 <dmitriz> ... there's a PR, we know of at least 3 other mechanisms to provide render hints (and this proposal unifies those)
16:40:58 <kristina> +1 for rendering in the directory, -1 in the core spec
16:41:02 <dmitriz> ... this is not a new work item, it's an extension point
16:41:07 <Orie> +1 for rendering in the directory, -1 in the core spec
16:41:14 <dmitriz> ... if you want this credential rendered, use this extension point
16:41:22 <kristina> me sorry, can't speak
16:41:39 <dmitriz> manu: to be clear, what we'd need to do in the group is just agree to an extension point called 'render'. and then the VC directory would list the various specs
16:41:42 <Orie> We don't need to agree to an extension point in this group, we have @context for that :)
16:41:48 <dmitriz> ... so, just looking for feedback
16:41:53 <dmitriz> q?
16:42:07 <Kerri_Lemoie> +1 to render endpoint
16:42:13 <manu> scribe+
16:42:16 <brent_> ack dmitriz
16:42:16 <Zakim> dmitriz, you wanted to more comments about render
16:42:20 <Phil-ASU> Where is the PR @Manu
16:42:24 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> +1 to rendering extension
16:42:33 <oliver> +1 to rendering extension
16:42:52 <dlongley> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1035
16:42:52 <manu> dmitriz: Wanted to say +1 to proposal for render extension point, Orie is right, PR to VC context, but also means adding a paragraphs/section to VC spec to say "render" is an extension point, for options go see the directory.
16:42:53 <ToddSnyderGS1> +1 to rendering extension
16:43:02 <kristina> +1 to rendering extension in the directory or in the core spec
16:43:04 <Phil-ASU> @dlongley - thank you.
16:43:07 <dlongley> +1 to `render` extension point
16:43:41 <dlongley> (or `rendering` if people prefer that name)
16:43:51 <manu> dmitriz: The render proposal was a paper in RWoT, with the proposal takes a look at existing prior art, Open Badges, DIF render, this mechanism adds support for expressing all those options. There was a session at IIW , packed room, on render, lots of interest from many parties. Question to the community, is there support for adding an extension point, then specifics in the directory.
16:44:01 <brent_> q?
16:44:06 <dmitriz> brentz: from what I see in the chat, folks seem generally favorable, so I encourage to go to the PR
16:44:06 <oliver> +1 to `render` instead of `rendering`
16:44:07 <brent_> ack Orie
16:44:17 <dmitriz> Orie: the DID Core @context has very few terms defined in core
16:44:34 <dmitriz> ... it relies using the JSON-LD @context for extensions, defined as RDF classes or properties
16:44:52 <dmitriz> ... there are cases where we probably made the wrong call on that, in DID Core
16:44:59 <dmitriz> ... for example, not defining any public key formats in DID Core
16:45:08 <dmitriz> ... there may be cases like that in the VC v1 or v2 context
16:45:13 <brent_> zakim, who is here?
16:45:13 <Zakim> Present: ivan, brent_, Paul_Dietrich_GS1, shigeya, natran, griffin, mircea, will, Phil-ASU, dlongley, manu, elfors, dmitri, dlehn, Orie, mirceanistor, dmitriz, jandrieu,
16:45:17 <Zakim> ... bumblefudge_, kerri, Kerri_Lemoie, TallTed, JoeAndrieu, ToddSnyderGS, snyder, dwaite, smccown, davidc, andres, oliver, cabernet, awhitehead, butters, kristina
16:45:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see kristina, brent_, cabernet, oliver, andres, DavidC, smccown, dwaite, ToddSnyderGS1, JoeAndrieu, gregory_natran_, Kerri_Lemoie, dmitriz, bumblefudge_, Orie,
16:45:20 <Zakim> ... mirceanistor, Phil-ASU, Will, kgriffin-gleif, Paul_Dietrich_GS1, RRSAgent, Zakim, ivan, TallTed, tzviya, dlehn, Jem, manu, w3c_modbot, cel[m], bumblefudge, ounfacdo,
16:45:20 <Zakim> ... saysaywhat, cel[h], npd, stenr, dlongley, cel, csarven, shigeya, hadleybeeman, bigbluehat, Dongwoo, stonematt, rhiaro
16:45:23 <dmitriz> ... where we're defining things in the @context that we shouldn't be defining there, that would be better in an extension or  in a second context
16:45:32 <dmitriz> ... or we're missing something that SHOULD be defined in the core context.
16:45:49 <dmitriz> ... this 'render' property feels like a perfect candidate for the VC Directory
16:45:55 <dmitriz> ... I don't feel it's ready for the core spec though
16:46:24 <manu> q+ to note that the reason we add extension points in the core spec is to convey how people should extend... not providing that guidance will result in "renderStuff", "renderBlah", "renderFoo", "rendering", "beefRendang", and so on.
16:46:25 <dmitriz> ... the challenge with including the 'render' property in the core VC spec, is the interaction with that render property, protected contexts, the terms defined in the specs
16:46:37 <dmitriz> ... I propose we wait and see how it's deployed in the wild
16:46:54 <brent_> ack manu
16:46:54 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that the reason we add extension points in the core spec is to convey how people should extend... not providing that guidance will result in "renderStuff",
16:46:55 <dmitriz> ... so, I recommend we just rely on the JSON-LD mechanism, and not add it to core spec
16:46:57 <Zakim> ... "renderBlah", "renderFoo", "rendering", "beefRendang", and so on.
16:47:11 <dmitriz> manu: to provide a counter-argument. the reason we define extension points in the spec, is to convey how people SHOULD extend
16:47:26 <dmitriz> ... we already have feedback from multiple implementers that they want to render credentials somehow, signaling to the market that rendering has value
16:47:38 <dmitriz> ... especially since there are many issuers today who DO care what the VCs look like
16:47:52 <kristina> +1 to relying on json-ld mechanisms for now, instead of adding a new property in the core spec for rendering.
16:47:57 <dmitriz> ... the danger if we do not specify the property in the spec, is that market will fragment with many terms, renderFoo and renderBlah etc
16:48:08 <dmitriz> ... the ask is very minimal. can we specify it /as/ an extension point
16:48:11 <DavidC> q+
16:48:12 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say the spec directory is good for open innovation, but isn't standardization. having a standard for rendering is going to be useful.
16:48:13 <dmitriz> ... so, very tightly scoped
16:48:26 <dmitriz> ... with a pointer to the VC Specs directory, where people can do the extension stuff that Orie is mentioning
16:48:32 <Orie> Manu, sounds like you are arguing that JSON-LD's extension mechanism leads to fragmentation, perhaps this is the core problem this is highlighting.
16:48:44 <dlongley> Orie: it's not binary like that.
16:48:56 <manu> yeah, Orie, please don't misrepresent the argument. :)
16:48:56 <brent_> Topic: Work Item status updates/PRs
16:49:00 <JoeAndrieu> q-
16:49:04 <andres> q+
16:49:08 <DavidC> q_
16:49:12 <brent_> ack dlongley
16:49:14 <DavidC> q-
16:49:20 <JoeAndrieu> the spec directory (not a registry) is good for open innovation, but isn't standardization. having a standard for rendering is going to be useful.
16:49:21 <brent_> ack andres
16:49:31 <dmitriz> andres: just want to make sure we ran the proposal for adopting the VC JSON Schema
16:49:39 <dmitriz> brentz: wasn't clear to me that you wanted to run it today
16:49:52 <dmitriz> andres: ah, ok, we can wait, but I want to make sure it's not forgotten
16:50:17 <Orie> q+
16:50:20 <dmitriz> brentz: if you're an editor for one of our work items and want to provide an update, please jump on the queue, then we'll move to PRs
16:50:22 <brent_> ack Orie
16:50:28 <manu> q+
16:50:36 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/60
16:50:38 <dmitriz> Orie: so, for VCJWT, we have 2 open PRs. PR 60 open by our wonderful chair Brent
16:51:02 <brent_> subtopic: VC-JWT
16:51:11 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:51:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/08-vcwg-minutes.html TallTed
16:51:24 <dmitriz> ... PR 60 - initially changes requested, seems currently no changes requested.
16:51:48 <dmitriz> ... the PR uses everyone's favorite programming language, English, to describe a mapping, and address some of the concerns
16:51:57 <dmitriz> ... from compact native representations to the VC data model. Please review.
16:52:07 <dmitriz> ... it's been open for 5 days with no objections. we'll merge it after a week
16:52:08 <TallTed> present+
16:52:14 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/61
16:52:16 <dmitriz> ... the next PR on JWT is 'shorten media types'
16:52:30 <dmitriz> ... it shortens the 'verifiable-credential' media type to VC
16:53:06 <dmitriz> ... there's still no consensus on whether we should shorten the media type. But again, there are approvals on the PR and no objections.
16:53:18 <dmitriz> ... so, if folks are objecting, please use the Github review feature to make the objections clear
16:53:28 <dmitriz> ... help me as an editor, so that I don't accidentally merge over an objection
16:53:37 <dmitriz> ... TallTed added comments
16:53:45 <brent_> subtopic: vc-data-model
16:53:47 <brent_> ack manu
16:54:10 <dmitriz> manu: I'm not going to go over old PRs, please take a look at them
16:54:23 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1062
16:54:24 <dmitriz> ... latest one - 1062, just does editorial fixes to media types section
16:54:32 <dmitriz> ... take a look at it, should be just editorial
16:54:45 <brent_> subtopic: VC-DI
16:54:48 <dmitriz> ... moving quickly - VC Data Integrity - we're adding an algorithm for retrieving the verificationMethod
16:55:04 <dmitriz> ... we'll need more people approving, but it seems to be - seems that people want to see this defined
16:55:06 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/86
16:55:12 <dmitriz> ... so, please take a look at it, comment, approve, etc.
16:55:27 <Orie> q+ to comment on JCS vs JSON.
16:55:27 <dmitriz> manu: for EDDSA, there are 2 PRs, one just updates test vectors, the other one is naming things
16:55:37 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-di-eddsa/pull/26
16:55:47 <dmitriz> ... so if you want to get involved in bikeshedding, on what to call the crypto suite that uses JCS for canon + signs with Eddsa, comment on issue 26
16:55:59 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-specs-dir/pull/1
16:56:07 <dmitriz> ... we have 2 PRs for the VC spec dir. one is for VC Status List, which I imagine will go in
16:56:17 <dmitriz> ... that's PR 1. then we have a new one, for the 1EdTech specs
16:56:26 <dmitriz> ... so take a look at those PRs if you have an opinion
16:56:44 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-specs-dir/pull/2
16:56:48 <dmitriz> ... the way the registry works is - if there are no objections and it's formatted correctly, it just goes in
16:56:53 <dmitriz> ... question to the chairs is - do the PRs even need reviews
16:56:57 <dmitriz> brentz: we'll discuss
16:56:57 <brent_> ack Orie
16:56:57 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to comment on JCS vs JSON.
16:57:23 <dmitriz> Orie: just to comment on JCS canon scheme - we discussed it at the f2f, and one of the reason we withdrew the JWS work item, is we knew that JCS was going to be proposed
16:57:38 <dmitriz> ... I'm pretty strongly opposed to calling that suite 'JSON' when it requires the JCS dependency
16:57:47 <dmitriz> ... lots of devs use JSON but don't know about JCS.
16:58:07 <dmitriz> ... I'm vocal on the PR regarding the namechange
16:58:13 <dmitriz> ... but I'm very supporting of /using/ JCS
16:58:40 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:58:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/08-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:59:50 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:59:50 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ivan, brent_, Paul_Dietrich_GS1, shigeya, natran, griffin, mircea, will, Phil-ASU, dlongley, manu, elfors, dmitri, dlehn, Orie,
16:59:50 <Zakim> ... mirceanistor, dmitriz, jandrieu, bumblefudge_, kerri, Kerri_Lemoie, TallTed, JoeAndrieu, ToddSnyderGS, snyder, dwaite, smccown, davidc, andres, oliver, cabernet, awhitehead,
16:59:50 <Zakim> ... butters, kristina
16:59:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:00:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/08-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
17:00:27 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:00:27 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
17:00:29 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:00:29 <RRSAgent> I see no action items