The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Credentials CG Telecon

Minutes for 2018-04-19

  1. poll results
  2. Peer claims
Christopher Allen, Kim Hamilton Duffy, Joe Andrieu
Kerri Lemoie, Nate Otto
Nate Otto, Kim Hamilton Duffy, Kerri Lemoie, Adrian Gropper, Serge Ravet, Valerie Thomas
Audio Log

Topic: poll results

Nate Otto: Scibe: Nate Otto
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I will share my screen to show the poll results. [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: People had lots of experience with VC, Open Badges, DIDs, Credential Engine [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Lots of people are interested in building prototypes. [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: People also have strong interest in use cases, crosswalks with other entities (to make this initiative mesh well with other entities) [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: You can follow the docs link above to view the freemform responses from people yourself. I'm seeing things around multiple qualified signatures, more sophisticated schemes like the scenario Serge mentioned. [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Selective disclosure, on-chain issuance and revocation, a few things around DIDs. Feel free to review this document at your leisure. [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Somebody mentioned that they do not feel the community are helping commercial companies wanting to build in this ecosystem. I would like to hear more. [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Some of us are working at companies, and we're in it because we think there are opportunities for our companies to make money in this space. To others, I say "come join us" - we might not be here to spoonfeed companies, because we don't have the bandwidth to do that... at risk of turning this into a diatribe is to focus our efforts so we can build things that we know are useful to companies we're working at. It's up to all of us in the community to [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Nate Otto: Make that happen.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: There are a lot of trends we're seeing, around interest in DIDs. Fortunately, a lot of the things we have plans to prototype are along these lines. [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: We would like to know from people, on use cases, "what is the problem you'd like to solve"? [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Nate Otto: Oh I can't ever remember the actual commands!
Maybe we can start exploring those use cases.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: The recipient side is key to making this ecosystem successful. Maybe "helping commercial companies" isn't our goal -- helping the recipients in that scenario may be closer. Tooling that is reflected at them. Recipients who can see the value of the credential [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Nate Otto: Val: On that note, it's interesting on that aspect of the use case: from the government perspective and the work we're trying to do with TalentCloud is exactly that - how can we create this sort of ecosystem that has those two sides of the coin (supply and demand). We very much want to prototype something but we don't have necessarily the right list of specs to follow.
Nate Otto: Val: This morning, we connected with a group in NASA (Nassau?), and we're getting a lot of resonance. The word badge doesn't necessarily resonate ("Credential" seems to have more weight and may have more mobility.) People really also were interested to see these blockchain use cases.
Nate Otto: Val: Seeing these use cases will really catapult those use cases.
Kerri Lemoie: Let's indeed see those use cases, because that's a direction the specification really leads into. [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Any other comments on the poll before we move on to peer claims? Maybe we can jump back to any specific use cases we'd like to see next [scribe assist by Nate Otto]

Topic: Peer claims

Kerri Lemoie is scribing.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: This peer claims paper spun out of our work from Rebooting Web of Trust [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Nate Otto: Thanks, Kerri
One of the topics that comes out of open badges is decentralized peer endorsements so Nate broke peer claims into its own paper
It describes the uses cases specific scenarios for perr-to-peer use caes
Serge also added Supporting Kirkpatrick Level 3 evaluation
Nate Otto: In the last call we went into the Kirkpatrick evaluation
Nate Otto: Level 1 Reaction made by the learner, Level 2 Learning acknowledgement of skills, Level 3 behavior, Level 4: results
Nate Otto: Learner, trainer, and line manager all have a say, statement
Nate Otto: Learner requests training and signs. Trainer assesses learning and signs. Supervisor (line manager) signs as well.
Nate Otto: Three different steps and stakeholders in a single badge
Nate Otto: Line manager can equate to "inspector"
Nate Otto: Use case where all three roles have a signature in the exchange
Serge Ravet: Nate described it well. The idea of issuer of recipient works in some contexts but we should think beyond to other trust relationships.
Serge Ravet: Badges can be claimed without an issuer
Serge Ravet: Adopt the vocabulary
Nate Otto: Collapses distance between issuer and earner.
Nate Otto: Ack: agropper
Adrian Gropper: Through perspective of reputation - to what extent can this become a component of a reputation system where:
Adrian Gropper: 1) Ability to create a summary - like stars for uber participants in a way where system can't be gamed 2) privacy - one or both should be able to hide identities
Adrian Gropper: Possible distraction from agenda item but wanted to put it out there
Nate Otto: Would like to explore
Nate Otto: What defines when it would be appropriate to conceal identity?
Adrian Gropper: Needs to be some way to arbitrate issues but there needs to be identity
Val: q+
Nate Otto: Significant issues in badges where the spec doesn't conceal identity. Badges can be sent to anyone but it may make sense to be able to conceal identity or other roles as it gets more complex.
Adrian Gropper: Would be happy to work on paper for next web of trust
Val: question - likes how the roles are broken down. Could the aspect of trainer also be considered a peer reviewer or community expert?
Serge Ravet: Yes - this is just a specific use case based on training.
Serge Ravet: Can write a specific use case to address community expert and peer reviewer.
Val: there is an opportunity to create a framework where people are rewarded for their skills.
Nate Otto: Modified the paper to capture some of this conversation
Nate Otto: Use case has three different states: ready to learn, ready to apply, competent
Nate Otto: Progression of credential status
Kerri q+
Nate Otto: Typically in open badges you can have an assertion or not.
Kerri Lemoie: I love this idea. It sort of ties into the concept of a living credential. Serge, I'm wondering if you're thinking of something I've been thinking of which is that this could involve updating the evidence as these states progress. [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Serge Ravet: Yes, I think that would be a way to do it. I presented a use case with three parties, but there could be more. Trainer, Assessor, Verifier, Endorsers from the community, who could bring it to another state. [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Kerri Lemoie: I like that because we do have an objective listed where we add more evidence to the badge [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Nate Otto: When we introduced endorsements into the spec which is the verifiable creds spec aliasesd to terms recognizable to open badges world. One of the abilities is being able to add comments and make claims using metadata properties that....
Val: the concept of living credential speaks to what's needed.
Serge Ravet: What we are defining an automaton where states are moved from one to the next. Add logic statements within the verifiable claim.
Nate Otto: Close to work with Badgr open pathways - starting standardization at IMS soon - can create an automated rules engine that describes whether or not you've metthe completion rule of assertions. Is very binary and based on badges and in the order they are awarded.
Nate Otto: How is this different from Serge's autonomoton state?
Serge Ravet: The people and roles are defined within the rules and service validates this and runs the automaton.
Serge Ravet: Trusted party validates the rules
Nate Otto: The badgr pathways processing engine determines whether the rules are met and displays progress.
Nate Otto: Pathways can present where people are in a pathway in a meaningful way. Can be a storytelling device and meaningful for people.
Nate Otto: Can be different levels of completion reliant on states.
Nate Otto: Validity may be extended rules based. Will add some examples to peer paper.
Kerri Lemoie: I think is slightly different, a riff off of this. It's more of a concept of one single badge changing on its own. I think it requires some kind of rules-based understanding. I was thinking of a case where the badge image actually changes and evolves as evidence is added to it. I'm hoping to prototype something like that fairly soon. [scribe assist by Nate Otto]
Nate Otto: Epic conference in October coinciding with Week or Reconition
Nate Otto: Aim to create json examples for the Kirkpatrick use case.
Nate Otto: Nate will work on providing a skeleton for this
Nate == ottonomy (btw)
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Can help to look at it for completeness from a spec perspective. Would be helpful to get help from someone with content expertise.
Nate Otto: Will send to list for review
Val: can offer support from an employer perspective
Nate Otto: I think the voipbot might not be actually functioning right now, but nobody on the queue. :)
Nate Otto is scribing.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: We have some action items on the paper - Maybe now it's time to fork the paper to remove the Option 2. We're pretty sure the Option 1 is going to work.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: We can track the prototyping as the next steps separately
Nate Otto: Prototypes on other paper first. Serge has been getting contributors [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
Nate Otto: 4 Weeks from content on peer claims [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
Nate Otto: Ld cap looks in early stages [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: There are some things I plan to do with the blockchain signature suite that I can start getting samples for
Kim Hamilton Duffy: We are at time: It would be ideal if we can start getting commitments to work on specific items, whether use cases, editorial or software. Over the next 2 weeks let's be thinking about what type of thing you'd like to work on.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I saw a few ideas being thrown out in the minutes. In two weeks perhaps we can isolate some of those and see what people might be interested in. Advancement of ideas for papers for next rebooting.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Any questions about work items?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Do you need help in crafting things to work on?
Val: One thing we're focusing on as part of our platform is the idea of recognizing indigenous talent. We have a large Canadian indigenous community, and there is a responsibility to have more inclusion in public service across Canada as a whole. One thing we're looking at is the concept of lived experience, recognizing and surfacing them as transferrable skills in a way that becomes visible and is seen as a valuable currency, if you will. That's one
Thing I'd be very interested in exploring as a particular use case, particularly with communities that are seen as vulnerable, -- create bridges into workforce.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Let's talk about that in 2 weeks
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Thanks, everyone, see you in two weeks.