The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

CCG Verifiable Credentials for Education Task Force Telecon

Minutes for 2020-12-14

<kimhd> Okay, let's get started. Today we're talking about accreditation and we'll start with the IP note, anyone can participate in these calls. However, all substantive contributors to any CC G work items must be members of the CCP with full IPR agreement signed
<kimhd> And the link to join the credentials community group is available at this location and pasting into chat.
<kimhd> And before that, you would need to create a W three Web Account and the link to do that is here. It's free to join community groups. And lastly, the text of the W three C community contributor license agreement is available at this link that I've pasted into IRC.
<kimhd> Called it these minutes in an audio recording of everything said on this call are archived at the CG meetings repo.
<kimhd> And we're not using the word, we're not using the IRC interface to queue and everything. And this call. Instead, you can you can use the raise hand feature.
<kimhd> And will call on you and informally, you can definitely type q plus in the chat and we'll get to you. We don't have that many people. Well, we have a team, but in general we don't have enough activity to really cause
<kimhd> Problems or Q backups.
<kimhd> Okay, let's get to introductions in reintroductions
<kimhd> We see if there's anyone new on the call. If there's anyone new on the call that would like to introduce themselves, please just speak up.
<kimhd> And we could also. So, let me make sure I'm not is. Can people hear me.
<kimhd> Yes. Okay, great.
<kimhd> Sure. Perfect. I
<kimhd> Would yeah and just wanted to make sure
<kimhd> Okay, if no one knew I think let's move to reintroductions and Brent. I'm not sure if I've called on you yet for reintroductions, would you mind introducing yourself to the group.
<bshambaugh> I'm sort of observing right now. I guess I've been around this community for a while in and out or past six, seven years. So I'm interested in learning a little bit more about what you're up to.
<kimhd> Great, thank you. Brent.
<kimhd> Okay, let's go on to next part of the agenda. I'm not sure if we have Anthony here yet. But I wanted to announce. We have a new co chair joining the group. And that's Anthony chemically airy.
<kimhd> And we're excited to have him join. He's been bringing a lot of expertise from working in verifiable credentials in the EDC I
<kimhd> Framework and so he's been really active in helping to drive the agenda so far and push push forward work items so very excited to have him join us.
<kimhd> Okay, now let's move to the main topic which is accreditation and I want to start by saying that this is not any sort of very well researched presentation on it. I think the goal is that
<kimhd> We would want to. Well, let me let me bring up the issue to start with. So, and I'll share my screen as well.
<kimhd> So we had talked about
<kimhd> The idea of dealing with accreditation.
<kimhd> As part of
<kimhd> As part of the modeling verifiable credentials for education spec.
<kimhd> So Anthony called out a couple of approaches. So trusted issuer lists VCs issued to organizations authorizing them to issue educational credentials trusted accreditation organization list. So, oh, there's a frowny face.
<kimhd> Huh oh that's a confused emoji. Okay. Um, let's see. So So Jeannie responded with some CD DL terms which were really useful.
<kimhd> I did a little poking around as well to see what are some different approaches that are used, and I wanted to do a presentation on it and this is more to get feedback from the community. See if there's an other approaches that I'm not familiar with.
<kimhd> And we can talk about how to move forward this issue in the modeling, Doc.
<kimhd> So I'm going to switch
<kimhd> To this presentation, I'm hoping that you can see this
<kimhd> Accreditation screen, speak up and let me know if not, and I'll reshare
<jim goodell> Looks good. Okay.
<kimhd> Do you want to send the link again.
<kimhd> So I did want to start with a non edu use case that I was familiar with in terms of accreditation and that's used in the barefoot, that is using verifiable credentials decentralized identifiers and all the standards that we're working on.
<kimhd> And the example is is KYC or verification of individuals acting on behalf, an organization.
<kimhd> So the use case comes from a pilot between consensus you port in life. And I understand, actually, that I think it was sovereign did did something similar. So I think the ideas are
<kimhd> Are similar I just did these worked on this or wrote this up before I was aware of that pilot. So the global legal entity identifier foundation or life.
<kimhd> They issue legal entity identifiers going to get increasingly awkward with acronyms. So I apologize.
<kimhd> Which is a unique 20 digit identifier for companies and the idea is to use this to reduce costs complexity of business verification
<kimhd> Specifically what this prototype focused on was the idea of combining these legal entity identifiers and verifiable credentials to centralize identifiers to enable
<kimhd> Rapid verification of a person acting in an official role. So I have a link to the medium article that that this is based on
<timothy ruff> You can
<timothy ruff> Yeah so glad. I made a major announcement last Thursday, so that they're moving forward with the feeling I which is their verifiable LCI and starting in January.
<timothy ruff> And it's going to be using verifiable credentials and they've got a big budget for it.
<timothy ruff> A couple of us have been engaged bike life to push this forward and I put a little note in the in the thing here that
<timothy ruff> The consensus you port PLC was one of five different PCs that they did under a partnership with Deloitte to help them basically explore the entire space.
<timothy ruff> And then they just made their announcement on Thursday that they are going to move forward. They're not actually going to use any of those five networks, they did go
<timothy ruff> Through the consensus report they did something with last year, which uses quorum, they did something on sovereign that a couple of others.
<timothy ruff> In the end, they decided to use carry for the to become their own root of trust, but the beautiful thing is they're going to be using be using standard verifiable credentials and that all begins. They're about to embark on a big
<timothy ruff> Open source development initiative.
<timothy ruff> everything they're doing is going to be fully open source and they're going to start dumping a bunch of resources into it in a
<timothy ruff> Few weeks, beginning in January.
<kimhd> So the idea here. The, the general flow is is the same. And so this is, you know, this is just an example I you know I say
<kimhd> This is an example of how verifiable credentials and decentralized identifiers and all of this can be used in that in that framework so
<kimhd> The, the flow that was used in this prototype was that life accredits a local operating unit and then it that enables in that's a verifiable credential that allows it to issue le eyes so so these legal entities, then can issue role credentials to oh wait, let me see. Okay, sorry.
<kimhd> Yeah, so, then those are issued to legal entities which are companies who then can issue role credentials to people acting and official roles. So that could be someone who is
<kimhd> You know, a corporate officer who can use the role credential to Sign and Submit regular regulatory filings.
<kimhd> So then regulators can view and verify the signatures of the submitted documents. So not only. I think the typical flow that we think are the typical like in game of verifiable credentials that we we sort of
<kimhd> Show in use cases are just sort of focusing on this last verifiable credential but but these sorts of end and flows are really key to establishing the trust that we would need. And so this is sort of a good general accreditation example. Let me see if we ok so now coming on to CT DL.
<kimhd> I wanted to start with an example that was that Jeannie link to in terms of the the sort of
<kimhd> how you would approach accreditation and CCL so there's an example provided about a dental assisting certificate. And so what this is doing in most will see this in a friendlier graphical view, but it's basically saying
<kimhd> You know Santa Rosa Junior College.
<kimhd> Offers this dental assisting certificate and then it will we won't go to look at the graphical view, but we want to say various things about
<kimhd> About the you know the accreditation of the junior college, etc. So let's look at this view. So we're saying Santa Rosa Junior College.
<kimhd> Offers credential over here certificate rather we're calling it credential in our terms, but that's certificate and CT DL terms. This is the key lead here accredited by so there's a quality assurance organization, the name is American Dental Association and off over here as well. We have
<kimhd> We have this you know competency that's required. So, in this is just spelling out the RDF triples, and, you know, in full detail I included this in case it wasn't readable just given our experience with tiny fonts last time.
<kimhd> Um, let's see. The other thing that I wanted to
<kimhd> To call out. So Jeannie listed here.
<kimhd> Some terms from CT DL. So see terms of credits approves recognizes regulates revokes which seemed like a good
<kimhd> List of the kinds of terms that we need an accreditation.
<kimhd> And so this is actually this example this dental example is taken from here.
<kimhd> Also these action classes looked really useful.
<kimhd> accredited by is definitely the most pertinent one
<kimhd> And I thought that there is some. Let me see. Let's look at these actions real fast. Just looking at at Lluis's comment.
<kimhd> I'm not sure if I see suspend se vocal we can we can come back to that that comment. So let's see.
<kimhd> So there's, there's that. The other example that I saw kind of in the wild, of what is being used is the Open Badges accreditation extension and this is an extension on the issuer
<kimhd> And so this is the these cases that an issue wants to include detailed information about an accrediting organization as it pertains to the program or bad show
<kimhd> The previous stencil example, example that we saw in the Open Badges case. I actually didn't tailor this example to that but but instead of the way it's model and see DDL, you know, it would be issuer and then effectively you add this under the issuer type, but the
<kimhd> concepts are very similar. Um, let's see what else I think. Okay, so those are the main contact said I wanted to provide
<kimhd> Um, any let me let me stop sharing for just a second. Come back to see if there's any comments or discussion if you do have comments.
<kimhd> It's a good time to see pace. So we have a Q plus
<kimhd> Okay, Adrian
<agropper> I sorry I just came in a few minutes ago. But my question is, I'm familiar with notaries and vaccination cards, where the verifiable credential is link for audit purposes to an accredited other party.
<agropper> Right, so the doctor that signs.
<agropper> The doctor that signs of vaccination card has to have a number that's published somewhere, presumably saying they're credited to do vaccinations a notary has a stamp that has a number that says they are accredited to notarized
<agropper> A credential and I'm curious whether either either of the two models you are talking about or both could be equally useful in those very common context, but they're not educational in any sense of the word.
<kimhd> Yeah, that's a good question. I wonder if
<kimhd> Let me see if we have a queue right now.
<kimhd> Let's see any hands raised.
<kimhd> Oh great, Nate. I was going to call on you to talk to your comment as well. So yes, Nate Europe.
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> Yeah, so there's a couple different types of relationships in play. And then there's a few ways to describe those relationships in the life example we saw the relationship
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> The accrediting relationship saying I have credit this organization to be able to do something, expressed as a verifiable credential.
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> That record would be portable and verifiable in the using similar mechanisms to the verifiable credentials ultimately issued by say educational institution.
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> In the Open Badges and seek Adele examples. We have a few different processes that we're looking at. One is that
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> There's a organization college may be issuing verifiable credentials to students to recognize educational achievements, but this educational institution is accredited and they have an accredited, but that a creditor is not yet issuing verifiable portable
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> Records of that accreditation. So what we have in the Open Badges extension and in the CTV L vocabulary is the ability for an organization to describe. It's a creditor
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> This college is accredited by this, you know, Northwest body of
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> You know, creditors that
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> Has local trust within the system. And so as we think about accreditation. We need to make sure we don't mix up these two different types of things. And then also decide what we want to actually accomplish
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> Do we want to just allow our issuers to describe what organizations they are accredited by in the real world, so that you can
<nate otto (badgr/csky)> Phone up the creditor and ask them about it or do we want to provide the mechanisms for accreditation to also be represented as verifiable credential alongside the sort of core verifiable credentials representing degrees competencies, etc.
<kimhd> Exactly. And I wonder if the
<kimhd> Okay, so yeah. Anthony says ideally both. I was thinking that originally
<kimhd> From the framing of it that only one of them, which is not necessarily the navigate ability, all the way back to the original source of trust. But yes, ideally it would be both.
<kimhd> Asia. And you're right, we need to deal with audit. In either case, I think, you know, the using just the one, the idea of saying I am accredited by
<kimhd> X where you know some relying party or verifying party knows they understand that.
<kimhd> That they recognize it. That is valid accreditation body is fine. But then, I guess. The interesting thing here is that we can trace it back further so that
<kimhd> You know, if there were entities acting on behalf of some other organization or even just individuals within an organization, it does provide sort of this more fine grained ability to audit.
<kimhd> So, I mean, at the same time, assuming that those verifiable traceable verifiable credentials exist does sound like
<kimhd> Possibly scope creep in something that we don't want to
<kimhd> Have a dependency on. So I think that's important clarification, Anthony in Anthony's on the call. He missed the announcement in the excitement of of everyone acknowledging His co chair edition. So I wanted to welcome Anthony again and welcome him as Co chair.
<kimhd> So Anthony. Oh, I was wondering if you could talk. You had mentioned the accreditation use case. I'm curious for your responses to this.
<anthonyfcamilleri> Yeah, so I mean I'm just going to mention two things, for the moment, because actually I like to found quite a bit like Nate here in the sense that I have seen both model and the wild. So for example, the
<anthonyfcamilleri> MC use case in Europe which Louise representing here is actually designing of the verifiable credential for accreditation standards and that's something which I assume they might be able to contribute to the group. On the other hand,
<anthonyfcamilleri> On the other hand, we also have yeah all sorts of registries. They're ranging from national registries to private one such as let's say the triple accreditation of business degrees, etc, etc. And I think we would need a way to represent all of these
<anthonyfcamilleri> Generally, I would say that we may be wouldn't want to do anything overly fancy where we would be saying, for example.
<anthonyfcamilleri> Proving within a verifiable credential that an issue or has an accreditation that we might let the or at least up first always linked to a registry.
<anthonyfcamilleri> But if that registry. Let's say it's a dumb registry, or is the registry or verifiable credentials. I think we probably could support that with the same metadata fields.
<kimhd> With. With. I'm sorry, with what
<anthonyfcamilleri> The metadata fields. Yeah. So basically i mean i i don't see this being too complicated in the sense that if you're thinking about accreditation, you're basically saying
<anthonyfcamilleri> Institution or program is accredited by a is accredited for and you are I have proof of that registration from some registry.
<kimhd> Right, and I think Carrie calls out a really good point here. The. Okay, so there's these two separate use cases, yes, we're seeing them both in the wild and Kerry mentioned, we need to make sure there's
<kimhd> Issues and inspectors need to know the difference. That part is key. I think to call out in this document curious or anything as stuff you good comments for me. Is there anything else you want to speak to
<kerri_lemoie> Know, no, but I do think there's a lot of there would be confusion about this and I was really glad that Nate brought this up because sometimes situations may need one. I mean both may need, you know, one or the other. Right. So we do want to be really clear. I think
<kimhd> Yeah, I like that. I want to capture that in the issue and then actually Simone. A. Can I have you speak to the EBS silence that you added
<kimhd> See, let me let me pull that up in the meantime.
<kimhd> Well, it's not coming up. Okay. It's just taking a while to load.
<kimhd> Okay, so we'll come back to that. I think those are important points to capture. I think I was also oh if she's a meeting.
<kimhd> I understand.
<kimhd> Let's see. I was also curious to find out.
<kimhd> Yeah.
<larinyo> Yeah, we may I
<larinyo> Can share my screen. But now, not Commission my screen.
<kimhd> Oh, yes. If not, let me know, because I have the site up as well.
<larinyo> Okay, so I can you should give me some rights me
<larinyo> I'm not sure if somebody was was going to talk about this, but
<larinyo> Just what I can share is just what does one installed is what we are implementing a PCI
<kimhd> Yeah, so be great. And actually, I don't know how to change permissions during the call. I might have to do it afterwards. But I'll share my screen, which is like this.
<larinyo> Yeah, but they think that the
<larinyo> Okay, this is a public public site. And this is a the documentation related to ABC and
<larinyo> Disney ABC addition to that we have made.
<larinyo> The greater impact about governance and about the points that D'Antoni also talk about about how
<larinyo> The one legal entity and the concert or city. Sure, and how the, what we call the great session body that's the one that will prove the legal entity that question or issue which will request to be registered into the Jersey Shore.
<larinyo> debilitation body will prove that on will issue, what you call the accreditation credential to the educational institution and all their correspondent the registry. So they trusted the issue registered the retention registered and also does a schema Registry will be involved into
<larinyo> The into the brief about the spectrum to everyone could agree.
<larinyo> If I can. So I think that it would be better to share a lattice commendation I can just make an export now and shared with you. Kim, or just we can apply it to today. We have, as you prefer.
<larinyo> I can do it now. All right.
<larinyo> Okay, so let me share my desktop.
<larinyo> Yes. Okay. So let me just try go back. Okay. Because I think that the
<larinyo> There are at least three
<larinyo> Three sites are related to
<larinyo> Do a B CI.
<larinyo> The one that Simoni shirt is the one public available butter relates to the specifications of ABC restaurant one and there are also some medium space and that requires a free account. The fee will login account there and you can get access to some
<larinyo> The specifications between the internal feature length that handles the public side, but this is what we have defined here in episode two, and here
<larinyo> At the end, what would introduce its governance for academic credentials. So first of all, some what we call the accreditation body mass index is accreditation body is the one that will then
<larinyo> Let education's delusions be registered into the tissue registry. And for that, after
<larinyo> Check with Member States roles. If on success on completion, completion the accreditation body will be issued that accreditation credential and to the educational institution and all the register will be updated.
<larinyo> Here he will have a more deeper view on how the use case governance relates to the sexual identity.
<larinyo> Components or Trusted Registry and main actors. OK, so the yours. Is it an SEO service. That's the like the Trusted Registry accreditation. It's just a service that helps a natural vessels legal entities to onboard on separate entity.
<larinyo> On here we have two different roles that are natural personal level entity can adopt on the use case on the on the inner workings from the promise use case medication.
<larinyo> That band then also these main actors for governance are required and after that accreditation credential has been issued.
<larinyo> And the educational institutions are and it to be, they become transitions and they are intended to issue the specific type of credentials, go to a concert. We can play with all these things. So you can be atrocity sure for
<larinyo> Any kind of or specific level of integration or Justin.
<larinyo> Good degree.
<larinyo> On that. Okay.
<larinyo> I can export all this information so we can share how all the details of how these things are done and how registered relates to the to the to the role to the actors and so on. He got help who can who can do it, of course.
<kimhd> Yeah, this is great. I just had a couple of questions. Yeah. The, the schemas for this. Are they part of or they just some EBS I schemas, are they
<kimhd> Sort of external
<larinyo> These are, in fact, our Eastern Europe as learning data model.
<larinyo> That as you know
<larinyo> Today they are XML plus shadows shadows basis, but here in a PCI, we are want to share realize it to Geo JSON.
<larinyo> Yeah yes project. So that's it, but it's it's not. There's no other schema is the euro pass learning data model things. The last name and phone him right
<larinyo> Now the model, I think.
<kimhd> Because I wanted to come back quickly to Adrian's earlier question about, you know, use outset. First, I was looking at it in several aspects of the model seemed
<kimhd> Nice. In general, but it does seem like this one is also targeting education use cases, even if it can be
<kimhd> Even if it looks model. Why is Apple more broadly.
<kimhd> Are you, uh huh. Let's see. Well, that's something we can come back to in general, I saw a good so I do like this. I think we should capture this in, in, you know, sort of one of our options as well.
<kimhd> Anthony. I like this proposal, the idea that we would say a must requirement of referencing an accreditation record or
<kimhd> I didn't even know I think referencing accreditation record. Does that sound like even a stronger requirement then say what either CT DL or or Open Badges support because they're they're sort of self claimed, I guess it would the what I'm seeing there is that
<kimhd> You would say, well, at least in the Open Badges case, you would say issuer make some claim about the issuer, but it's not clear that that has any sort of
<kimhd> You know signature any sort of enforcement. Like, I think it would be expected for the relying party to independently verify that. So I think this must requirement might be even higher bar.
<kimhd> Than what I'm seeing there.
<anthonyfcamilleri> A little bit biased here because I did spend part of my professional career tracking down the poem it all found it.
<anthonyfcamilleri> Kind of in after that exists. I mean, fake accreditation bodies, the whole lot of thought I would think that
<anthonyfcamilleri> Accreditation records are only valuable if their order to make the Lord is the ball. I think it's all public registry, at least the URL for the accreditation record would it should we be good base. Level per entry. I mean, I don't know any reputable accreditation in public or private sector society, but the records. So who is accredited somewhere on the computer. I think you are is quite straightforward to do it, but I felt that way and opinion from combined with special experience.
<kimhd> I wonder what the reality is, in the US, I should know this. Probably, but you know, I don't know if those are public. If anyone knows, be nice to add yourself to the queue.
<kimhd> Adrian is on the queue to ask about privacy of the accreditation registry, which is probably related to what I'm getting at. Adrian
<agropper> Yes, it's, it's exactly that and I have seen both. So in the US case you have, for instance.
<agropper> The NPI number
<agropper> For physicians, which is publicly available.
<agropper> And you also have the DA number for physicians, which is not publicly available, not because it's not public information, but because it's part of a business model.
<agropper> That the government used in order to publish the DA number registration. So I am extremely interested in, for instance, what goes on in the European context or any of these contexts as to this particular issue. It seems to be the same in education. And I'm just wondering
<agropper> You know, the, the absence of Oracle's of public Oracle's
<agropper> For accredited membership is a is a huge problem in general. And I'm wondering if in education. This is part of the problem. I'm sorry I don't attend these calls very often but
<agropper> To me turning access to the registry into a business model seems suboptimal but maybe education is different than medicine.
<kimhd> Yeah, these are good points. I mean,
<kimhd> Let's see. So I think obviously ideally in in my world, these would all be public, I guess, worst case, even if it is part of the business model and and relying parties would be expected to have some relationship with the
<kimhd> Entity that makes it available is long. It is as long as they're able to do that through link data, then that would satisfy the
<kimhd> Requirements, you know, assuming that would, in that case, that would be, you know, linked data that they would have to then authenticate to get
<kimhd> Which seems kind of counter to the goals of this, but maybe it works.
<kimhd> But yeah, I don't know what I don't know what the cases.
<kimhd> Kerri is the accreditation for the issue or the credential. I thought it was for the or I'm not sure if you're asking, in general, but I would think it's for the credit station for the issuer to issue a category of credentials are sort of, yeah. A type of setup type of credentials.
<kerri_lemoie> You know I am. I want to clarify a little bit here is, um, the CT dl and the accreditation is
<kerri_lemoie> Is for the credit accrediting organization, not necessarily the issuing organization because with CCL they can be separate.
<kerri_lemoie> In Open Badges the accreditation the issuer and the program is the same right assumes that the issuer and the credential creator
<kerri_lemoie> Is the same organization, there's no separation between the two. So I think there's a difference between accrediting who creates the credential who creates the school or the program music school to say there.
<kerri_lemoie> Or is the actual issuer being accredited
<kerri_lemoie> So for an example, there is I use this one quite a bit is the American Red Cross, but they have one CPR program.
<kerri_lemoie> They
<kerri_lemoie> Don't know if you would call it accredited, but they sort of endorsed right local deliver new educators on that program.
<kerri_lemoie> And so, what would that be in this credential. If someone were to get a first aid credential or CPR credential from their local school, but it was an American Red Cross, what would the accreditation, be they may not be the best example but that's what I had at the top of my head.
<kimhd> These are really good points. And I think that this is an example of, I think, with the accreditation are all this conversation is pointing to. We'll just have to be very specific about which use cases are in scope in
<kimhd> Ideally, you know, not locked out certain use certain use cases as well.
<kimhd> I think it's even more complicated than I had originally thought which I already knew is complicated. Let me see if there's any discussion to anyone else have anything to add. I see some conversations on the in the chat.
<kimhd> Brent
<brent shambaugh> seems like an obvious question, but
<brent shambaugh> I'll ask it why
<brent shambaugh> Why is there emphasis specific use cases over others. Are you trying to is it about the vocabulary that you're concerned with not the underlying mechanics.
<kimhd> Right, I think it's less about the vocabulary. Then, so I think it's just a huge space to navigate and especially when we talk about certain framework, or like For example, when we talk about using terms in some way versus the other.
<kimhd> And then we talked about the idea of needing to add terms to it. We just have to be very specific to make sure we're sketching out which use cases, we want to address because that in some cases will argue for one approach versus the other. And it's basically like
<kimhd> We don't want to over target one approach.
<kimhd> And, you know, sort of make up a solution in the absence of requirements.
<kimhd> You know data model mapped to the different you know frameworks that we're trying to use here most efficiently and ideally in the most forward looking way. And I think also capturing the use cases helps call out like if there's any you know if there are any shortcomings or oversights in the use cases, then it's easier for people to say like, Oh, you're overlooking this or that. So that's my take on it.
<kimhd> Keith, you're up.
<keith_kowal> Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to think through this conversation. I'm just trying to think more about the use case conversation like
<keith_kowal> You know, I've handed I've shown them my degree or my education credentials and job context. Many times, but I don't think they ever check if they're accredited institution is accredited
<keith_kowal> I've also applied for like masters degrees. I don't think they ever checked it my degrees were credit, I, I understand certain like if I was applying to be an engineer with the professional engineering association or something.
<keith_kowal> They would check this accredited certain certifications, they would check it, maybe they would check if it was a credit or not, but I'm just trying to understand this use case in the US context about when
<keith_kowal> When organizations really want to make sure that you're issuing institution is accredited. I just because I think that would help the conversation to kind of really lock down some different use cases.
<kimhd> Yeah, I have some thoughts on that, please. Other people add yourself to the
<kimhd> The idea of the you know the smaller credentials and competencies gained along the way. And, you know, maybe they should be checking the accreditation. So I when I lived in California. Okay, so this is an example where
<kimhd> I probably shouldn't talk about this but I applied for a job because I lived in California. I was able to see the background check, Ronnie. They weren't able to confirm anything I said about myself, but I got the job anyway so
<kimhd> You know, in this case, I, I like to think that I was, you know, I was honest about everything. I said, but it's just really, you know, there is a lot of fraud in
<kimhd> You know, in education, like it happens. Someone at MIT. One of the MIT administrators
<kimhd> Lied about having a doctorate like it happens all the time. So, the stakes are very different, but so there's the the negative impact side but then I think there's also the positive one of saying like, you know, if someone without
<kimhd> You know, fancy degree claim can instead, you know, prove all these individual competencies that make them eligible for a job and if the relying parties have trust in that process, then we're opening up new pathways. So those are two
<kimhd> Two paths. I was thinking of Adrian. I think you're up next.
<agropper> Right, so this is this was kind of my point earlier about, it's easier to understand and pick between these models. If you do it from the point of view of audit.
<agropper> Because the the audit makes the, the whole process work because the audits are statistical and so as long as the credential is expensive and, you know, education and credentialing is expensive, then the parties are loads to be audited.
<agropper> Because if they're caught even once.
<agropper> They, you know, they, they lose a lot of value, the signers, you know, the notary's the doctor. So, I think this is the general solution in the world is what I'm saying is to deal with it as a probabilistic audit.
<agropper> Rather than trying to decide, in which case is something sensitive because you're going to be the
<agropper> The admissions director at MIT and in other cases it doesn't matter.
<kimhd> Everything Anthony, I think you're up next.
<anthonyfcamilleri> I just wanted to share a few different examples of use cases since it was asked, are so a couple of different ones. So first of all, in Europe, if you take any degree us nationally, we actually need to verify accreditation. It's basically a I'm simplifying, but it's basically legislation.
<anthonyfcamilleri> A second example, if you take an MBA, the gold standard of MBAs globally is something which is called the triple accredited, which means you're accredited by the atheists be accredited by acquisition. I'm forgetting what the third organization is
<anthonyfcamilleri> That I think there's three or 400 MBA schools globally that are listed. And basically, if you're from a triple A credit in business school.
<anthonyfcamilleri> You, you know, you get access to the top jobs now maybe the first 50 schools on that list are, you know, globally renowned browns.
<anthonyfcamilleri> The 350 that are under it, you probably would be wanting to highlight to your employer that your school is triple accredited as you're going
<anthonyfcamilleri> I'm a third example which is it's a completely different is what we come into the MOOC platforms and
<anthonyfcamilleri> That there are various kinds of thing MOOC accreditation going around everything from inclusion within something like Coursera to
<anthonyfcamilleri> Our the excellence type moves in Europe, and there's a few other they know about. And again, they would look at the big number of MOOCs out there.
<anthonyfcamilleri> You also might want to show that. Listen, your movie came from some sort of accreditation on a local one very, very last example here, we also have plenty of examples of lengthy
<anthonyfcamilleri> Employers for will accept to graduates was certainly a barely vocational qualifications, if it comes from school that have a credit have received certain types of accreditation.
<anthonyfcamilleri> From business chambers. And again, if you're showing this all your then slowly just basic needs a lot of administration, all the way through to verify this stuff manually.
<kimhd> Thank you. Anthony and I think to Keats point this probably does try to the idea of making sure our use cases are pushed through even further. So, you know, use cases in the sense of
<kimhd> Instead of expressing it just, you know, relying party wants to verify
<kimhd> A issuer has blah accreditation push it back even further to, you know, some of the precise scenarios Anthony's talking about Keith Europe.
<keith_kowal> Yeah, I think those are great scenarios. And I think the question for me is then for whatever mechanism that we come up with for this.
<keith_kowal> How you know I think I always look at it. How can it be ingested in a very automated way. So maybe to use your, your grading MBA example.
<keith_kowal> You know I I submit a job with an i have my MBA as part of my resume.
<keith_kowal> How can that just pop up in the recruiters window that this is an accredited institution because I would not expect to that recruiter who's looking at 50 applications that day.
<keith_kowal> Is going to go digging into every institution or, you know, I think where I kind of stumbled on CD TL I don't know they're gonna go to CDs to page and read about the accreditation or phone the creditor
<keith_kowal> I don't think. And if it's done through a verifiable credential, then I guess, also, like, how would we ingest that an automated way so it's it's displayed in a very transparent way to the recruiter, who, again, is looking at 50 applications that day.
<kimhd> If anyone wants to talk to that, please add yourself to the queue.
<kimhd> I think, you know, my, my personal thoughts again. And is that you know what credential CT DL has right now is a lot of the raw material that we need. I think a lot of the pilots that T three, for example, are working towards
<kimhd> Are sort of about, you know, so, so see HDL credential engine registry, the data is exposed in a machine readable way.
<kimhd> I think that you're right like relying parties don't necessarily know that that's there are to look for that or you know someone with any other framework.
<kimhd> But I think that what we're what some pilots are talking about is actually building the infrastructure to help make that more readily available. So it's not even that they would be able to
<kimhd> Inspect or confirm everything, but at least if there's some amount of, you know, verification that they can get out of the way in deeply inspect then then that's providing some amount of verification
<kimhd> I think that, so. So yeah, I think the general answers. What we're talking about more is building or not, not specifically in scope of this this task force, but we're talking about enabling people to build the tools that would allow them to do that.
<kimhd> Let's see.
<kimhd> I see a few things in chat. Does anyone have anything they want to add
<kimhd> On record.
<kimhd> Victoria verification process, time consuming complex. Yes.
<kerri_lemoie> He cadences carry
<kimhd> Good.
<kerri_lemoie> Um, you know, I hear some great information coming from me dress. We all have like these experiences and the assumptions about what the use cases are
<kerri_lemoie> I think we have found in the past with you. Education credentials that we come back ourselves into a corner by not thinking of the full scenarios like not getting a full scope.
<kerri_lemoie> And getting stuck there which is problematic for adoption. Right. So I would suggest we try not to be an anecdotal about what we're trying to come up with in any of these discussions and that we actually try and do some research to support what what is needed and not rush through it.
<kimhd> Yeah, and I think
<kimhd> To your point, Kerri, the goal of this group is is two things, you know, we want to unblock pilots, so people can get started right now, so I think
<kimhd> In some cases, I want to reflect that in the the modeling document that we're working on. So I think, you know, maybe there are certain use cases that are to comp too complex to put into that but
<kimhd> In they would be follow up work, but I think, you know, we conversion are schemas here. I think we want to enable pilots, we want to test and learn, but we also want to set the expectation that
<kimhd> You know, this is a task force in a community group. These aren't standards yet, but we're trying to build up to something that we might be able to recommend that group takes on so
<kimhd> Let me see if we have any other comments or questions. I think we're getting pretty close to time there's a lot of information, a lot of ground that we covered that I wanted to still into the accreditation issue.
<kimhd> That is going to take a little bit of time to sort of assimilate that feedback but
<kimhd> I'll, I'll do that so that we can then kind of come up with a more refined approach Adrian Europe.
<agropper> I have a question. As I understand it, schools, in general, treat their credentials is a form of toxic waste in the sense that they pay intermediaries in order to
<agropper> Handle the verification process rather than doing it themselves. So to the extent that they're paying somebody else to do this. That's why I use that analogy is this common in education around the world, is it unique to the US and are we trying to change this in some way.
<kimhd> I like this toxic waste.
<kimhd> Thing. Yes, national National Student Clearinghouse.
<kimhd> You know,
<kimhd> My understanding is
<kimhd> Is that. Well, definitely in the US that it that that perception is correct.
<kimhd> I think that we are also trying to
<kimhd> You know chip away, or sort of enable trust enable
<kimhd> Visibility and audit stability into that Anthony, you're, you're up.
<anthonyfcamilleri> Against all odds of that question from a European perspective. And to be honest, we have every model imaginable in Europe. So we've got some places like Norway to actually have National Student clearing houses.
<anthonyfcamilleri> Are we've got other places like parts of the UK and Ireland that the common practices to Solstice out to break a company for verification
<anthonyfcamilleri> And we have countries where the institution continues verifying on credentials and also where if the institution closes your credential physically move any value. So I think every model actually to send the while of the world.
<kimhd> And Victoria. You're at
<victoria_feng> Yeah, sure. So I want also share some experiences we we find out when we have pitching to the schools and are we talking to the dimensions. So like also back to the questions in China. The process is also the same.
<victoria_feng> We always would like to have a third party acting as agency to verify all the credentials also verifying the schools. So the, the fact we find out is like
<victoria_feng> Schools doesn't want to take that risk to saying I'm I am the issuer and also we're verifying that just take too much.
<victoria_feng> Credibility of them as as a as a as a school so everybody agree on a third party to do verification process so they can get rid of this part of the credibility. I am just a school
<victoria_feng> I'm capable of teaching I mission critical data. So if you want to verify everything that just curious, or parties, we do for everybody. So that is pretty much
<victoria_feng> A fair game. At this point, and also for us as the service provider which add additional layer a party will be on the process, but I think just based on
<victoria_feng> Our experiences. The third party at this point is very hard to get rid of because all the service providers.
<victoria_feng> As a vendor is even us. We're not trusted by agency, at least at this point now chargeable
<victoria_feng> By the government. So if even our technology right now is ready to provide the kind of service can bring the issuer's and verify our and also degree holders altogether.
<victoria_feng> But still the same thing. Like one institution, trust your platform. But then another institution may not. So at this point, just get rid of agencies, very, very hard.
<kimhd> Right, these are great points.
<kimhd> We are one minute away from time and this is a fantastic conversation here today.
<kimhd> Thank you everyone for joining. And I guess the next couple of weeks will be canceled for holidays, but it's been a great year. Thank you everyone for your great for your participation.
<kimhd> And looking forward to starting the New Year with our new co chair Anthony and have a great holiday season, everyone.
<kerri_lemoie> Thanks, Kim. Thanks everybody.
<kerri_lemoie> Great holidays.
<maarten> Thanks.
<anthonyfcamilleri> Bye.