14:42:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg-special
14:42:34 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/07/11-vcwg-special-irc
14:42:34 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:42:35 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:43:20 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Special Topic Call on Reviewing PRs
14:43:21 <ivan> Date: 2023-07-11
14:43:21 <ivan> chair: brent
14:43:21 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f6342df0-f7b5-4fc9-babd-61e55dc5fc2f/20230711T110000/
14:43:35 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-07-11: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f6342df0-f7b5-4fc9-babd-61e55dc5fc2f/20230711T110000/
14:56:37 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg-special
14:59:21 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg-special
15:00:14 <andres> andres has joined #vcwg-special
15:00:19 <andres> present+
15:00:55 <will> will has joined #vcwg-special
15:00:58 <will> present+
15:01:29 <brent> present+
15:01:39 <ivan> present+
15:02:08 <ivan> present+ pauld, gabe
15:02:16 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg-special
15:02:18 <PL-ASU> PL-ASU has joined #vcwg-special
15:02:22 <decentralgabe> present+
15:02:27 <PL-ASU> present+
15:02:55 <ivan> present+ dlongley
15:03:43 <PhilF> PhilF has joined #vcwg-special
15:04:02 <PhilF> present+
15:04:03 <TallTed> present+
15:04:04 <ivan> present+ orie
15:04:04 <will> scribe+
15:04:32 <ivan> present+ hsano
15:04:36 <ivan> present+ tallted
15:04:45 <will> brent: today we will be going through various p.r.s looking to discover what changes can move these forward.
15:04:58 <will> ... alternatively we will look to close them
15:05:24 <ivan> Topic: PR reviews
15:05:25 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1100
15:05:41 <will> ... this first one is media types + ld + json
15:05:57 <will> ... buidling on some of the miami resolutions. Four requests for changes currently
15:06:08 <oliver> oliver has joined #vcwg-special
15:06:11 <oliver> present+ oliver
15:06:14 <will> ... how can we move this P.R forward?
15:06:23 <orie> orie has joined #vcwg-special
15:06:25 <orie> present+
15:06:31 <PhilF> q+
15:06:40 <brent> ack PhilF
15:07:12 <will> PhilF: kevin opened this P.R. Seems this P.R will not be able to move forward. No objections to closing
15:07:12 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg-special
15:07:12 <orie> +1 PhilF
15:07:15 <ivan> present+ jandrieu
15:07:27 <will> brent: and objections to marking pending close?
15:07:55 <will> ... no objections, labelling pending close. Will close in 7 days if no objections
15:08:22 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1101
15:08:53 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:08:53 <will> ... this P.R is around trying to make miami resolution actionable
15:09:45 <will> brent: within the next two weeks we will look forward to a replacement P.R from Mike Jones so we can close this one
15:09:50 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1142
15:10:13 <will> brent: this next one is around adding confidence method as a reserved term
15:10:33 <will> ... current understanding is this is blocked awaiting adoption from the CCG group to move this work forward
15:10:37 <orie> Per the last comment on it, I will remove the confidenceMethod part in a week or 2 if there is still not CCG adoption.
15:11:02 <will> oliver: currently waiting for owners of this work in the CCG. Nobody has stood up to take on this work
15:11:19 <dlongley> q+ to ask why 2 weeks and not just before CR?
15:11:25 <will> ... intend to wait two weeks, if noone willing to take this on then we should close this P.R in the VCDM
15:11:32 <brent> ack dlongley
15:11:32 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to ask why 2 weeks and not just before CR?
15:11:34 <will> brent: started 2 week time out 5 days ago
15:11:53 <will> dlongley: question around why 2 weeks timeout as opposed to just before CR
15:12:01 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg-special
15:12:03 <will> oliver: I eould be supportive of this
15:12:18 <selfissued> present+
15:12:21 <ivan> s/eould/could/
15:12:23 <will> brent: goal of the shorter timeline is to not have P.Rs hanging around indefinitely
15:12:33 <will> ... want P.Rs to be progressing, merging or closing
15:12:36 <oliver> q+
15:12:45 <brent> ack oliver
15:13:08 <will> oliver: If we don't find anyone in two weeks, then we could create an issue to track this work
15:13:27 <oliver> q+
15:13:33 <brent> ack oliver
15:13:47 <will> oliver: Need one person to be the main driver of this spec in the CCG
15:14:02 <selfissued> q+
15:14:03 <dlongley> +1 to the issue compromise approach, clearly there's support for the work just people too busy right now.
15:14:08 <will> ... have multiple copilots, but need a main driver that I can coordinate with
15:14:09 <brent> ack selfissued
15:14:24 <will> selfissued: generally have policy to only put normative things in the spec
15:14:44 <will> ... CCG work item does not qualify to add an identifier to our spec
15:14:57 <will> ... CCG is not standards track
15:15:02 <orie> +1 selfissued, but the registration table is a cheat code :)
15:15:15 <will> brent: recognise that, but this is about getting into the table of reserved properties
15:15:30 <will> ... expect selfissued concerns to be addressed before CR
15:15:37 <will> ... moving on
15:15:41 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1149
15:15:55 <will> brent: graph node identifiers for registered claims
15:16:18 <will> orie: P.R adds term defs for registered claim names consistent with IANA registrys
15:16:48 <will> ... This will enable terms to be expanded with IANA term definitions
15:17:29 <will> ... moved status list into v2 context, moved data integrity to make things easier. Follows that we would define these registered claim names in the v2 aswell
15:17:46 <dlongley> q+
15:17:54 <brent> ack dlongley
15:17:59 <will> dlongley: I have approved the P.R
15:18:06 <ivan> s/aswell/as well/
15:18:22 <will> ... my understanding is current blocking is an example for the use of this
15:18:58 <will> ... Help make sure we provide appropriate guidance to folks to avoid 1.1 mistakes
15:19:02 <orie> Do we have guidance on the DataIntegrity and StatusList parts, or is a different bar being applied here?
15:19:12 <will> brent: TallTed can you speak to the change requests you would like
15:19:13 <dlongley> orie, totally different situations :)
15:19:20 <orie> disagree.
15:19:23 <dlongley> there are no conflicting properties there
15:19:29 <will> TallTed: still reviewing the P.R
15:20:31 <will> brent: my opinion as chair that if a P.R requesting changes to the spec. Can't just say you don't like it. If it doesn't prohibit you from doing what you need and doesnt break the internet. Then we should lean towards trusting intentions of those who raised P.R and let the work move forward
15:20:55 <will> ... TallTed if you can take some time in the next few days to see if your request for changes have been satisfied. Same for manu, alhough not present today
15:21:13 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1163
15:21:22 <will> brent: rationalise and clarify IANA considerations
15:21:57 <will> TallTed: This P.R intends to add additional clarity to section headings and ordering
15:22:16 <will> ... objection seems to be in relation to asthetic breakage of sidebar
15:22:17 <orie> I'm good with adding text under the heading, and changing the order... I don't like the messy sidebar.
15:22:42 <will> ... the duplications can be eliminated by tweaking the headings
15:23:09 <will> orie: fine with changing the order and adding clarifying text. Just don't like respec sidebars with really long headers
15:23:22 <will> ... must have missed TallTed suggestion. Will take another look
15:23:42 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg-special
15:23:47 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1172
15:24:24 <will> brent: Add author and party to terminology and rewrite claim terminology. Raised by Reiks, not a member of the working group. But these are arguably editorial changes
15:24:40 <will> ... P.R adjusts the definition of the claim
15:25:10 <will> ... goes on to define party and makes changes about whether vc has been authored vs issued
15:25:13 <orie> q+
15:25:19 <brent> ack orie
15:25:41 <will> orie: not sure adding more roles helps with readability or clarity for implementers
15:26:06 <will> ... reading some comment in relation to Presentation. Says something about holder is just another issuer when making claims about themselves
15:26:24 <will> ... This makes sense to me
15:26:43 <will> ... if we add this P.R. will have to go back to every place with issuer and holder and reevaluate this text
15:26:58 <will> ... feel it will lead to confusion and extra text
15:27:03 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:27:06 <will> brent: chair hat off. I share all those concerns
15:27:10 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:27:19 <will> JoeAndrieu: think there are interesting gaps we should clarify
15:27:36 <dlongley> for clarity in the minutes, i think the new role is "author" (i don't see any other new ones being added)
15:27:37 <will> ... don't think we need to add more terms
15:27:54 <will> ... have a notion that a device could be an issuer, holder etc. But not sure that fits with my mental model
15:28:08 <TallTed> q+
15:28:18 <will> ... issuer, verifier holder is legally congnizant entity that can take actions. Device is not this
15:28:19 <brent> ack TallTed
15:28:32 <will> TallTed: the words JoeAndrieu just spoke concern me greatly
15:28:46 <will> ... legally cognizable has not been part of our previous conversations
15:29:03 <will> ... nothing in what we wrote before said they couldnt be machines
15:29:09 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:29:17 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:29:42 <will> JoeAndrieu: I think TallTed not entirely wrong. Think its about the ability to make a statement and what does that mean
15:29:43 <TallTed> q+
15:29:48 <brent> q+
15:29:56 <will> ... people and corporations can make statements
15:30:06 <brent> ack TallTed
15:30:15 <will> TallTed: okay, that applies to issuer perhaps. But not to holder or verifier.
15:30:26 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:30:39 <will> ... neither one of those roles has anything to do with making a statement
15:30:55 <brent> ack brent
15:30:58 <will> ... maybe the issuer, but dont suggest we go down that rabbit hole.
15:31:34 <will> brent: some of earliest anon creds were by trusting computing modules. Issued by the device, to say something about the device. Strong example of issuer that is just a computer
15:31:36 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:31:46 <dlongley> maybe this PR just needs to be pared back a little to get to consensus
15:31:49 <will> JoeAndrieu: I think holders make statements when they make a presentation
15:32:03 <will> ... highly relevant that the holder is signing the presentation
15:32:24 <TallTed> q+
15:32:30 <brent> q+
15:32:34 <brent> ack TallTed
15:32:40 <will> ... for verifier I agree, they aren't making statements. But for me the verifier isnt the entity that is verifying business rules. BUt the entity writing the business rules. That entity is legally cognizable
15:32:41 <PL-ASU> +1 to the importance of the holder to be able state their claims about attributes of their capabilities in a self-issued credential. They are issuers in this context.
15:32:59 <ivan> present+ identitywoman
15:33:02 <brent> ack brent
15:33:08 <will> TallTed: do not fully disagree, but I do mostly. If we go down this road, we will need to be rechartered. Big, complex topic.
15:33:27 <will> brent: suggestion to slim down the P.R from dlongley to increase chance of acceptance
15:33:30 <will> ... moving on
15:33:49 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1182
15:34:43 <will> brent: this P.R removes differentiation between JSONLD and JSON.  Has relatively broad approval
15:34:55 <will> ... minor changes from manu, that I agree with
15:34:58 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #vcwg-special
15:35:12 <will> ... not sure this P.R calls for much discussion, but open to any if there are some
15:35:45 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1183
15:36:41 <will> brent: this clarifies the date time requirements for things like valid from and till. Provides a regex for validation. P.R has broad approval, awaiting a final thumbs up
15:36:51 <will> ... from chair of the internationalization working group
15:37:02 <ivan> q+
15:37:03 <will> ... open to comments
15:37:07 <brent> ack ivan
15:37:52 <will> ivan: isnt it better to make this one and previous P.R. to say that as soon as submitter is finished they can merge the p.r
15:38:01 <will> brent: not in the habit of doing this in the group.
15:38:23 <will> ... happy to find a label/make a comment to that affect
15:38:48 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1186
15:39:15 <will> brent: P.R seeks to address issue #860
15:39:33 <will> ... provides normative guidance for holder claims in a presentation
15:39:51 <will> ... a holder can elect to either produce a VC secured on its own and insert into vc array of the presentation
15:40:01 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/860
15:40:07 <will> ... alternatively they can include an unsecured VC in the presented vcs.
15:40:36 <will> ... as long as issuer field of the VC and the holder field of the presentation match. Then the issuer can have confidence that this is self attested claim from the holder
15:40:54 <will> ... all comments have been responded to. Awaiting final review from TallTed
15:40:59 <andres> q+
15:41:01 <oliver> q+
15:41:02 <will> ... open to comments
15:41:02 <PL-ASU> +1 to that PR pertains to issue 860
15:41:06 <brent> ack andres
15:41:26 <will> andres: made a comment about enabling forwarding of credentials
15:41:35 <will> ... not sure how that would be possible using the self asserted type
15:41:54 <dlongley> q+ to say for that use case just sign the VC
15:42:06 <brent> ack oliver
15:42:08 <will> ... maybe this isnt a use case that is as important to support
15:42:09 <brent> q+
15:42:20 <will> oliver: can see interop issues with this approach in the future
15:42:38 <will> ... many other ways to achieve the same. Are we saying this is the only approach to achieve this
15:42:44 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:42:48 <brent> ack dlongley
15:42:48 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say for that use case just sign the VC
15:42:52 <will> ... nt sure this is the right approach. Not objecting, just a comment
15:43:06 <will> dlongley: think forwarding use case can be solved by attaching a signature to the VC
15:43:16 <will> ... using a SelfAsserted type is just a recommendation
15:43:29 <ivan> s/nt sure/not sure/
15:43:34 <brent> q-
15:43:53 <will> ... think P.R is really around enabling the VP to be the securing for self attested claims
15:44:05 <PL-ASU> q+
15:44:08 <oliver> q+
15:44:08 <will> ... otherwise holder can just act in the role of issuer
15:44:28 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:44:28 <will> ... this adds a mechanism to secure using proof of the VP itself
15:44:54 <will> JoeAndrieu: part of this shift has missed some of initial point from issue #860
15:45:16 <will> ... this was about how you say these claims are about this specific thing right now
15:45:27 <dlongley> perhaps give the VP an ID and include that in your VC claims
15:45:30 <brent> ack PL-ASU
15:45:30 <will> ... not sure how we address that
15:46:09 <will> PL-ASU: this is in relation to the self asserted. The fact that there may be a circumstance where self-asserted claims do not want them to be forwarded
15:46:17 <brent> ack oliver
15:46:32 <will> oliver: I heard that we have two different issues
15:46:58 <will> ... JoeAndrieu wanted author of credentials about the VP and the ability to include those in a presentaiton
15:47:21 <will> ... then there is the one about self asserted with proof from the VP used to secure
15:47:28 <will> ... maybe we need separate P.Rs for this
15:47:53 <will> brent: any concrete proposals or changes to this P.R is appreciated. Not sure how to act on the general guidance
15:48:21 <will> ... responding to JoeAndrieu , should be easy to add a line to the sepc that addresses your usecase
15:48:55 <will> JoeAndrieu: think that is pretty good. E.g. if it says if you are making a VP, you could have the ID of a VP that you then refer to
15:49:00 <will> brent: okay I can make that change
15:49:12 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1189
15:49:24 <will> brent: add section on media type precision. Some change requests
15:49:58 <will> ... P.R adds guidance for implementers and users of spec for what they may do if they encounter diff media type / content
15:50:18 <dlongley> q+
15:50:20 <will> ... minimal processing guidlines to determine if contents conforms with VCDM
15:50:30 <brent> ack dlongley
15:50:34 <TallTed> q+
15:50:34 <ivan> q+
15:50:36 <will> dlongley: changes are applied. Approved now
15:50:39 <brent> ack TallTed
15:50:49 <brent> ack ivan
15:50:51 <will> TallTed: appears to be same. Will double check but think it is ready to go
15:51:14 <will> ivan: wondering whether it is appropriate to be as a normative section. This is guidlines for implementers
15:51:39 <will> brent: note there is no normative language in the P.R
15:51:54 <will> ivan: yeah but there is an algorithm. Normative sounding text
15:52:05 <will> ... Not just about the SHOULD or MUST etc
15:52:14 <will> ... not saying I am opposed, just asking the question
15:52:29 <will> brent: any concrete changes?
15:53:02 <will> ivan: changes would be to make it clearly informative. But just asking question currently
15:53:24 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1190
15:53:40 <will> brent: P.R makes changes to the IANA considerations section
15:54:02 <will> ... mentions application/vp+json alongside vc+json.
15:54:17 <will> ... seems a very simple P.R. Expect to be merged soon
15:54:51 <will> brent: encourage folks to take actions to move stuff forward. 11 P.Rs is slightly uncomfortable
15:54:59 <will> ... thanks for attending
15:55:23 <will> ... note that there are other P.Rs in other work items. Please review
15:55:43 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:55:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/11-vcwg-special-minutes.html ivan
15:56:02 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
15:56:02 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been andres, will, brent, ivan, pauld, gabe, decentralgabe, PL-ASU, dlongley, PhilF, TallTed, orie, hsano, oliver, jandrieu, selfissued,
15:56:05 <Zakim> ... identitywoman
15:56:05 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:56:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/11-vcwg-special-minutes.html Zakim
15:56:13 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:56:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg-special
15:56:45 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
15:56:45 <RRSAgent> I see no action items