The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Credentials CG Telecon

Minutes for 2015-08-04

Dave Longley is scribing.

Topic: Recruiting

Manu Sporny: We'll likely be having similar calls for the next month as we get these documents into shape.
Manu Sporny: We had a couple of new organizations join thanks to the emails Mark Leuba and John Tibbetts sent out. Thanks very much for that, actually 8 or so more organizations due to that.
Manu Sporny: I haven't had a chance to update the recruiting document yet.
Manu Sporny: Maybe by mid this week, Eric, we might want to send another ping around to give people a last chance to say they want to participate.
Manu Sporny: I'm trying to get in touch with the CEO of Dublin Core to get them onboard. I note that we still don't have many healthcare companies on here so we want to note that with our contacts.
Nate Otto: I reached out to IBM, they are already a W3C member, but their team working on credentials is very interested in this work and hopefully they'll circulate this around.
Manu Sporny: Are you speaking with Arnaud Lehore (sp)?
Nate Otto: No, we've got another high level contact.
Manu Sporny: We've got people in the Linked Data space interested and so that's good that we've got multiple contacts.
Richard Varn: If someone is talking to IBM is that they own Kenexa which is training and HR stuff and they'll be very interested in that.
Manu Sporny: Do you have any contacts there?
Richard Varn: No, I just know they are interested in this kind of stuff.
ACTION: Manu to reach out to Arnaud and James Snell about Credentials and Conexa.
Matt Stone: I know we're having a discussion with IBM right now about some badging stuff, maybe I can also find out who we're talking with over there and make some in roads.
Manu Sporny: I'll try and send out an email after this call linking all the IBM contacts we know.
Manu Sporny: I'll send out an email to the effect of "we need a central contact for this"
Eric Korb: I had a conversation last week with Acclaim, and they're working on us with IMS Global, and ... I had a conversation with Peter Jansow from IMS yesterday and he's participating in that project. They said they'll participate in standards groups where they plan to incorporate it into their product. I presume that eventually they'll have to be looking at the standard [bad audio for me]. My sense is that they are a maybe with a capital M. Peter Jansow is the contact there, from Acclaim.
Nate Otto: I only saw two links -- are there 4 ready for internal viewing now?

Topic: Glossary Document

Manu Sporny: Based on the hard work that Eric did on an internal document around glossary, I've taken almost all of those definitions, the ones that pertain to this CG, and updated the ReSpec version.
Manu Sporny: If you look in the terminology section, scroll about 50% of the way down the link in IRC, you'll see the latest and greatest terminology.
Manu Sporny: This is the terminology I've heard used in the group and Eric has documented, so not much should be surprising. I added a few things. I stripped out because it's a specific service and glossaries don't generally discuss those. Matt Stone, I know we've got this discussion about earner vs. recipient and we should at some point work through that. If we add earner to the glossary or if we change recipient to earner, etc.
Gregg Kellogg: I noticed we updated the Vision document and there's a missing link to "requestor" which has been removed?
Manu Sporny: Yeah, I think we call them "credential consumer" now. So it should be replaced with that.
Gregg Kellogg: Ok, I'll take care of that.
Nate Otto: (Earner vs. recipient): I suggest adding a note to the recipient definition that says the recipient is sometimes called the earner.
Manu Sporny: We don't have to review the glossary on the call today, just a heads up that I think it's aligned with what the group thinks. If you have a spare second please read through it and send review feedback to the mailing list. If you disagree with the text please say "This is what the text says today and this is what I think it should be changed to"
Manu Sporny: Nate, that's great feedback, please send it to the mailing list so the editors don't lose track of it.
Gregg Kellogg: If you can create an issue on the website that makes sure it gets tracked.
Gregg Kellogg: A good idea is to transfer things that come in into github issues.
Nate Otto: On credential consumer vs requestor: requestor is an awkward term a little bit, but it is more specific than consumer, because consumers can either be pushed credentials or can pull (request) them.
Nate Otto: The link Eric shared is an old version of the Open Badges specification. Latest version at
Eric Korb: When I first built this I used a lot of the "Assertion" link. We're trying to draw parallels, does it make sense to link back to that spec to create synonymous representations?
Eric Korb: I don't know if we have one on every item but we have a lot of them. There are sometimes things that are duplicated. The context stands alone, but on top of that we have a vernacular with overlap. I think the context needs to be a whole different treatment from what we're doing with this glossary.
Nate Otto: I'll take an action to review this glossary.
Manu Sporny: I think that's the right approach, the context is far more low-level. There are more terms in there (glossary).
Nate Otto: Good work so far, all.
Manu Sporny: To answer the question, "What do we do with synonyms, etc?" ... the way it should work is we take a glossary term and we cross reference it to "assertion" in the OBI spec.
Manu Sporny: That makes it clear that when we say "claim" we mean "assertion". I don't know if that's quite true today for that example, but that's how things line up.
Manu Sporny: That's how we do it with other standards bodies etc.
Manu Sporny: With cross references.
Gregg Kellogg: There's actually a mechanism specifically referring to external definitions and that's the place to do it. We'll also need an ontology, a prescribed vocabulary for mark up. The context becomes derived from the ontology. Glossary - ontology - context. I have some tools that I've created to manage all of these things in a spreadsheet and emit all the appropriate documents. And when I'm ready we can port those over for our purposes.
Manu Sporny: Yes, thank you Gregg. We'll definitely need a vocabulary. We've pieced some of that together today with the demo.
Nate Otto: On the glossary topic, here's a sentence that I wrote to show the difference between a few different terms that are often confused in the Open Badges space:
Nate Otto: "An issuer organization decides to start a badge program, so its staff members design a badge system to go with the program’s content delivery and assessment practices. Then they run badge software to issue badges to recipients. "
Manu Sporny: I think there's an open badges vocab ... it's kind of been an amalgam of a bunch of different vocabs.
Eric Korb: This is for Matt Stone. I looked at the Acclaim API documentation and I noticed that you guys have some specific terms I haven't seen before. I was wondering if you could take a look [bad audio].
Eric Korb: I'll send the link over, in the API documentation on Acclaim, I saw some documentation I hadn't seen before, I saw the term "guarantor" and I was wondering if we should include that in the glossary.
Matt Stone: Yeah, sure.

Topic: Vision document

Matt Stone: It's "grantor" not "guarantor".
Manu Sporny: I went through all of the Web Payment specific things and looked at the goals that we have in our executive summary and tried to elaborate on those. That combined with working on these blog posts has really helped refine, I think, the statements in the vision document. If you look at section 3...
Manu Sporny: We call them "desirable properties for a credentials architecture"
Manu reads section 3.
Manu Sporny: That section translates all of the goals we had written down in our executive summary a few months ago; it puts them into the vision doc in a pretty succinct way. Any questions on the vision doc or where we are with it?
Manu Sporny: The next step is review of that document and to send the feedback to the mailing list/github tracker.
Gregg Kellogg: If we remove the large terminology section that would be good.
Manu Sporny: Yeah, it should be smaller. I think you have to specify an extra param to do that.
Gregg Kellogg: Oh yeah, that's what it is.
Manu Sporny: I don't know if roadmap, use cases, or capabilities have been updated in the last week. Anything anyone wants to mention on those?
Manu Sporny: I think we can probably strike discussion of the glossary and vision docs on calls after this one until we get review feedback. There's no real reason to discuss them on calls until then.
Eric Korb: @All I'm out next week.
Manu Sporny: We do need review comments flowing in, so if we don't see that coming in over the next week we'll ask people to take actions to do it.
Manu Sporny: Once we get roadmap and use cases into shape that's really good news because that's effectively what an IG would have done. At that point is becomes more difficult for people to suggest we need to create an IG because the output of an IG is those types of docs.
Manu Sporny: I think we should have a complete set of docs for a WG to pick up by the end of Sept/early Oct.
Manu Sporny: I think that's it for the call today.