15:15:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:15:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/21-vcwg-irc
15:15:52 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:15:53 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:16:07 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:16:08 <ivan> Date: 2024-02-21
15:16:08 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3c7f5c66-5e34-468a-837e-2c2bf12de748/20240221T110000/
15:16:08 <ivan> chair: brent
15:16:09 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-02-21: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3c7f5c66-5e34-468a-837e-2c2bf12de748/20240221T110000/
15:55:51 <ivan> present+
15:59:16 <TallTed> present+
15:59:48 <ivan> present+ brent
15:59:59 <ivan> present+ manu
16:00:13 <ivan> present+ selfissued
16:00:16 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
16:00:29 <brent> present+
16:00:41 <ivan> present+ mircea
16:00:47 <ivan> present+ dlongley
16:01:11 <ivan> present+ meier
16:01:17 <mirceanis> mirceanis has joined #vcwg
16:02:36 <ivan> present+ pauld
16:03:16 <will> will has joined #vcwg
16:03:17 <will> present+
16:03:41 <ivan> scribe+ selfissued
16:03:42 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:03:44 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
16:03:49 <DavidC> present+
16:03:50 <selfissued> present+
16:03:53 <selfissued> scribe+
16:04:15 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
16:04:21 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
16:04:25 <selfissued> brent: Welcome to the VCWG call
16:04:25 <decentralgabe> present+
16:04:30 <manu> q+
16:04:31 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #vcwg
16:04:37 <brent> ack manu
16:04:57 <selfissued> manu: I responded to a privacy review by Ping
16:05:30 <ivan> present+ dlehn
16:05:41 <selfissued> Jennie: I'm Jennie Meyer.  I'm here with Digital Contract Design.
16:06:05 <brent> Topic: PING Review Report
16:06:16 <manu> https://github.com/w3cping/privacy-request/issues/127#issuecomment-1932531261
16:06:32 <selfissued> manu: PING did a review on Bitstring Status List 2 weeks ago
16:06:37 <manu> Response here: https://github.com/w3cping/privacy-request/issues/127#issuecomment-1956903375
16:06:41 <selfissued> ... including by Martin Thompson of Mozilla
16:06:49 <selfissued> ... I responded about an hour ago
16:06:59 <selfissued> ... Nothing new came up
16:07:17 <selfissued> ... The spec could talk more about correlation and tracking with the identifiers used
16:07:24 <selfissued> ... Please look at the response to them
16:07:44 <selfissued> ... I've requested that they raise issues for things they want us to address
16:07:46 <decentralgabe> q+ updates to vc jose cose
16:07:52 <decentralgabe> q-
16:07:57 <decentralgabe> q+
16:08:04 <decentralgabe> q- updates
16:08:34 <selfissued> manu: If they don't raise issues, we may have to read the tea leaves
16:08:41 <brent> Topic: Work Item Status Updates/PRs
16:08:51 <brent> ack decentralgabe
16:08:54 <manu> q+
16:09:09 <selfissued> decentralgabe: We've been making excellent progress
16:09:23 <selfissued> ... We have 10 remaining issues for Before CR - 4 with PRs
16:09:43 <ivan> s/progress/progress on jose-cose/
16:09:44 <selfissued> ... We hope to get to CR by the end of the month or not much later
16:10:00 <selfissued> brent: PR #239 adds securing with JWS
16:10:17 <manu> scribe+
16:10:29 <manu> selfissued: Gabe has done good work so that rendering of examples are consistent.
16:10:40 <selfissued> ... People are encouraged to review the issues and PRs
16:10:59 <brent> ack manu
16:11:18 <manu> scribe-
16:11:22 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
16:11:25 <selfissued> manu: I processed PRs on VCDM.  We have another set that appear to be non-controversial.
16:11:46 <ivan> present+ Przemek
16:11:51 <manu> Jeffrey has reviewed the algorithm alignment work here: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/244
16:12:00 <przemek> przemek has joined #vcwg
16:12:41 <manu> q+
16:12:48 <brent> ack manu
16:13:34 <selfissued> brent: Are there other VCDM PRs that could benefit from discussion in the group?
16:13:54 <brent> Topic: PR Review
16:13:54 <selfissued> ivan: There's also the item on media types we should look at
16:13:56 <decentralgabe> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1439 should be ready for merge, will do after this call
16:14:05 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1441
16:14:15 <ivan> q+
16:14:57 <manu> q+
16:14:59 <brent> ack ivan
16:15:01 <decentralgabe> q+
16:15:20 <brent> ack manu
16:15:28 <selfissued> ivan: I don't want to get into a discussion of the details of the diagram here
16:15:37 <selfissued> ... The question is whether we want to keep it
16:15:40 <selfissued> manu:
16:15:51 <selfissued> manu: We should keep it.  I've referred to it.
16:16:01 <manu> lifecycle of VC: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#concrete-lifecycle-example
16:16:56 <selfissued> ... We should update the diagram and move it to the lifecycle section
16:16:58 <brent> ack decentralgabe
16:17:10 <selfissued> decentralgabe: +1 to what Manu said
16:17:17 <selfissued> ... I find the diagrams very useful
16:17:20 <manu> +1 to "more pretty pictures please"
16:17:26 <selfissued> ... More pretty pictures please
16:17:31 <ivan> q+
16:17:51 <selfissued> brent: Where in the DM is the diagram currently?
16:17:55 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#life-cycle-details
16:17:56 <brent> ack ivan
16:18:03 <selfissued> ivan: Let's keep it
16:18:20 <selfissued> ... I propose that I edit the diagram to incorporate comments from David Lane, etc.
16:18:29 <decentralgabe> we also have https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/#concrete-lifecycle-example without a diagram
16:18:31 <selfissued> ... Later we could move it, but I don't want to mix the two issues
16:18:45 <ivan> s/Lane/Lehn/
16:18:46 <selfissued> ... I'm happy to do the required changes
16:19:19 <manu> q+
16:19:21 <selfissued> brent: We should probably combine sections
16:19:24 <brent> ack manu
16:19:33 <ivan> For reference, the new version of the diagram is (temporarily) here; https://raw.githack.com/w3c/vc-data-model/validation-on-diagram/diagrams/ecosystemdetail.svg
16:19:48 <pdl-asu> pdl-asu has joined #vcwg
16:19:50 <ivan> s/;/:/
16:19:54 <pdl-asu> present+
16:19:59 <selfissued> manu: We need to figure out what we're doing with these sections
16:20:10 <selfissued> ... Let's start by updating the diagram first
16:20:22 <selfissued> ... Then later editorially move things around
16:20:30 <ivan> +1 to manu
16:20:52 <selfissued> brent: The PR that modifies the diagram will be merged after Ivan updates it
16:21:09 <selfissued> ... I will open a PR proposing combining sections
16:21:28 <ivan> q+
16:21:32 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1440
16:21:44 <brent> ack ivan
16:22:11 <selfissued> ivan: We had a call on this issue.  We decided to change the term "Media Type" to "Encoding Format".
16:22:14 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1408
16:22:16 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
16:22:26 <manu> q+
16:22:35 <selfissued> ivan: Discussions are ongoing
16:23:00 <selfissued> ... We shouldn't spend that much time on this
16:23:08 <brent> ack manu
16:23:47 <selfissued> manu: The goal is for activity streams to be able to use this without changes
16:24:06 <selfissued> ... We may just be incompatible with the activity streams context
16:24:26 <selfissued> ... If changing this one thing doesn't fix it, then we shouldn't make the change, since the problem wouldn't be addressed
16:24:47 <selfissued> ... The way activity streams and schema.org define the context are neither right
16:24:53 <selfissued> ... We probably don't want to do this
16:25:12 <selfissued> ... Maybe we should define IANA media type and have it refer to the IANA registry
16:25:29 <selfissued> ... I'm leaning towards that being my preference
16:25:33 <ivan> q+
16:25:40 <selfissued> ... The downside is that we're creating yet another term
16:25:42 <selfissued> q+
16:25:47 <brent> ack ivan
16:26:14 <selfissued> ivan: Note that the two things you mentioned are orthogonal to one another
16:26:26 <selfissued> ... What term should we use?
16:26:36 <selfissued> ... Should we define it ourselves?
16:26:37 <manu> q+ to ask Dmitri if there are plans for another AS context?
16:26:38 <TallTed> ianaMediaType was my idea, fwiw. its domain & range remain vital.
16:27:03 <selfissued> ... The definition of a data type for media types can be added
16:27:08 <selfissued> ... It's not a huge deal
16:27:20 <selfissued> ... I question altogether whether we should do
16:27:29 <selfissued> ... This property won't be widely used anyway
16:27:46 <manu> scribe+
16:27:50 <dlongley> another option is to go with `encodingFormat` today and then potentially add `ianaMediaType` or `mediaType` in a future WG
16:27:51 <brent> ack selfissued
16:28:11 <manu> selfissued: It would be strange to change from a term that is well known "media type" to "encoding format", which we'd be entirely making up.
16:28:23 <manu> ivan: We are not making it up, schema.org defined it.
16:28:28 <manu> selfissued: That's not authoritative for us.
16:28:32 <manu> ivan: That's debatable.
16:28:34 <brent> ack manu
16:28:34 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask Dmitri if there are plans for another AS context?
16:29:42 <selfissued> manu: Dmitri is on the call and is chairing the Social Web Community Group
16:30:03 <manu> q+ to propose a concrete path forward.
16:30:10 <selfissued> dmitri: We're the ones shepherding the activity streams formats
16:30:24 <brent> ack manu
16:30:24 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to propose a concrete path forward.
16:30:27 <selfissued> ... We want to be able to sign activity streams objects
16:30:40 <selfissued> manu: We shouldn't use schema.org
16:30:48 <selfissued> ... We shouldn't use activity pub
16:30:58 <ivan> q+
16:31:02 <selfissued> ... We should point to IETF and IANA and get this right once and for all
16:31:19 <selfissued> ... It probably shouldn't go in our vocabulary
16:31:31 <selfissued> ... It could go in our security vocabulary
16:31:43 <selfissued> ... We should call it something that people understand
16:31:48 <ivan> q+
16:32:16 <ivan> -> IANA pointer https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml
16:32:23 <brent> ack ivan
16:32:38 <selfissued> ivan: I have put this pointer into the minutes
16:32:59 <manu> q+
16:33:13 <selfissued> iana: From an RDF point of view, would the pointer be the URL of the property?
16:33:26 <selfissued> ... I don't really like that
16:33:40 <selfissued> ... Instead we can define a media type for RDF
16:33:49 <selfissued> ... This is where the string format is defined
16:34:03 <brent> ack manu
16:34:03 <selfissued> ... We define a property in one of our vocabularies
16:34:13 <selfissued> manu: I wouldn't object to that
16:34:34 <selfissued> ... But we'd be repeating what the social web and schema.org did and we'd be creating another property
16:34:49 <selfissued> ivan: I don't know exactly how activity streams defined it
16:35:02 <selfissued> ... If its compatible with IANA, we could use it
16:35:21 <selfissued> ... If Dmitri gives me a pointer to the definition, I could look at it
16:35:25 <manu> It's defined here: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-mediatype
16:36:00 <selfissued> dmitri: What's the objection to reusing the mediaType definition?
16:36:13 <selfissued> manu: They made it too specific to activity streams
16:36:25 <selfissued> dmitri: That could be changed so it can be applied to any domain
16:36:33 <selfissued> ivan: That would be perfect
16:36:35 <selfissued> q+
16:36:53 <brent> ack selfissued
16:37:04 <manu> selfissued: It's not clear to me, are we taking a dependence on an externally defined vocabulary?
16:37:06 <selfissued> dmitri: We could change that
16:37:08 <manu> q+
16:37:12 <brent> ack manu
16:37:38 <selfissued> manu: We already point to a bunch of externally defined vocabularies
16:37:47 <selfissued> ... We'd be reusing the URL they use for the definition
16:37:58 <selfissued> ... This would be more correct than using the schema.org encoding
16:37:59 <dlehn> q+
16:38:03 <selfissued> ... We could actually call this media type
16:38:06 <brent> ack dlehn
16:38:27 <manu> q+
16:38:32 <manu> q-
16:38:38 <selfissued> dlehn: ?Question?
16:38:57 <selfissued> ... Equivalency checking
16:39:01 <manu> agree with Dmitri, I don't think this is an issue to re-use AS as long as it's aligned.
16:39:11 <selfissued> ... How much do people do full RDF processing?
16:39:15 <selfissued> dmitri: Zero
16:39:32 <ivan> q+
16:39:46 <selfissued> brent: The proposal to raise an issue on the activity streams repository sounds right
16:39:56 <brent> ack ivan
16:39:58 <selfissued> ... For our PR, the consensus is to not merge that PR
16:40:13 <selfissued> ivan: I'm happy to close it
16:40:32 <selfissued> ... Who has the action to raise the PR in the right place?
16:41:00 <selfissued> brent: I'm willing to do it but I'm not sure I could accurately reflect what we want.
16:41:06 <selfissued> ivan: I'm willing to do it
16:41:21 <brent> Topic: VCDM Issue Processing
16:41:30 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
16:41:56 <selfissued> The activity streams repository is https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/
16:42:05 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1254
16:42:55 <manu> q+
16:43:00 <brent> ack manu
16:43:29 <selfissued> manu: This text is in the internationalization write-up
16:43:41 <selfissued> ... I think it's fine where it is
16:43:54 <ivan> +1 to manu
16:43:58 <selfissued> ... It doesn't need to be in the Security Considerations
16:44:09 <selfissued> ... I think we should mark the issue pending close
16:44:18 <selfissued> brent: Any objections to that?
16:44:24 <selfissued> ... No objections
16:44:29 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1098
16:45:08 <selfissued> brent: This is about setting up a mini registry inside the spec
16:45:21 <selfissued> ... What are the next steps?
16:45:41 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
16:46:14 <selfissued> DavidC: The issue sets it out clearly
16:46:28 <selfissued> ... It's a question of semantics
16:46:28 <manu> q+
16:46:41 <selfissued> ... If something is already defined, what does it mean to more formally define it?
16:46:46 <brent> ack manu
16:47:14 <selfissued> manu: The distinction is between a term being defined, referencing a URL, and writing text about the definition
16:47:50 <selfissued> ... For example, we may reserve render method but we won't write normative text about it
16:47:58 <selfissued> DavidC: I can buy that
16:48:08 <selfissued> ... We have a table of reserved properties anyway
16:48:39 <selfissued> ... We can say that "these terms are reserved" and may be defined later
16:48:40 <manu> +1 to that suggestion
16:48:46 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1197
16:48:52 <selfissued> DavidC: I can create a PR
16:49:46 <selfissued> q+
16:49:53 <brent> ack selfissued
16:50:08 <manu> selfissued: The term "public key" is well known, "verification material" is not, why would we do this?
16:50:08 <manu> q+
16:50:18 <brent> ack manu
16:51:33 <manu> manu: There are verification methods that don't use public keys.
16:51:55 <selfissued> brent: A response to this issue entails going through the spec and inspecting the places we use the term "public key"
16:52:04 <manu> scribe-
16:52:11 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/995
16:53:06 <manu> q+
16:53:11 <selfissued> q+
16:53:14 <brent> ack manu
16:53:53 <selfissued> manu: I am against continuing this discussion
16:54:42 <selfissued> brent: Marking "pending close", per the previous minutes
16:55:21 <selfissued> brent: If we are pretty sure we're not going to get to something, we should close it.
16:55:37 <selfissued> ... I don't have confidence that a future group will pick up on leftovers we leave them
16:55:58 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:55:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/21-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:56:06 <selfissued> ... We're right on the verge of being able to call it done
16:56:55 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:56:55 <RRSAgent> I see no action items