The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Minutes for 2021-04-13

<jack_tanner_(gimly)> Hi everyone
<orie> yep
Peter Mackinnon is scribing.
Heather Vescent: Welcome to CCG meeting 4/13, we will start linked-data sigs, CCG 101, and several proposed work items:
Heather Vescent: Topic: IP Note
Heather Vescent: Join the XXG:
Heather Vescent: IRC:
<pchampin> Pierre-Antoine Champin present+
Heather Vescent: Topic: Introductions & Reintroductions
Pchampin: new to VC groups, interested in JSON-LD, I'm a professor and W3 member
Jack_Tanner_(Gimly): Hi, I'm Jack Tanner, here for new spec discussion
Casper_Roleofs_(Gimly): exited to be here
Robert_Long: also glad to be here
<robert_long> Having some issues hearing certain people in Firefox.
Heather Vescent: Q? - brings up queue / q+ - joins the queue / q- - leaves the queue
Heather Vescent: Any Re-Introductions?

Topic: Announcements & ReIntroductions

Heather Vescent: Announcement & reminders:
Heather Vescent: Anyone want to speak to IIW?
Juan Caballero: Heres the link

Topic: Work Item: Verifiable Condition

... thanks to Jack Tanner, heres the floor
Heather Vescent: Verification Methods New Work Item Proposal:
<kimhd> Hi everyone, welcome back to the normal time!
Jack_Tanner: current Verification methods have one key, this new type allows for multi signatures
<orie_> big +1 to the work item
... a new proposed verification method, also a way to show relationships between DID methods. More sophistication for secure identities
<orie_> very much needed
... welcoming any comments or questions. Lastly, this verification method type should support several Key Infrastructures and more advanced DIDs
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Hey guys, Heather's computer crashed, I'm taking over for now
... manu youre up in the Q
<heathervescent_> All - my system crashed, give me a moment to restart
Manu Sporny: There are a number of things I've been commenting on
<heathervescent> All - I'm back. Thanks Kimhd for filling in.
Jack_Tanner: the design is intentionally recursive
... there are a few other considerations to subtypes not in this work proposal
... some might lead to security concerns, and we didn't have clear use cases
Markus Sabadello: +1 To work item
... also generally interested in new and creative verification methods. This seems generally applicable
Ryan Grant: One question i have is: is this a signature scheme or a DID method? What exactly is it?
Jack_Tanner: this will specify specific conditions on how to fill a verification method
... this will be on the verification method array, and also on the verification-method property
Orie Steele: Just a note, not all DID methods expose security in the documentation
Orie Steele: That was helpful [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
Jack_Tanner: this would allow to check for verifiable credential fulfillment
... it has function higher up in the SSI chain
Markus Sabadello: Verification methods dont have to be based on cryptographic signatures
... this method combines other verification methods without concern for what they are
Heather Vescent: Any comments or objections?
... Jack, do you have a repo to transfer over
... we can discuss the details after the meeting

Topic: Work item: Traceability API

Heather Vescent: Traceability API:
... moving on, Tracability API and general discussion
Orie Steele: Tracability Vocabulary conversation...
Heather Vescent: Context thread for this request:
... credentials are not being exchanged. We need a new set of "holder" end-points (p2p)
... We've been trying to define a usecase scenario for verifiable presentations
... this new work item is an opportunity to deal with interoperability
... we plan to build on top of CCG specs without breaking them
... trying to get the API to work across different vendors
<troy_ronda> Another example of a request for exchange APIs (so these scenarios go beyond supply chain):
Heather Vescent: Generally, we need to try and work with a better understanding of the existing work being incorporated
Manu Sporny: +1 To heathers comment
... the Tracability API seems like a fork to the specification without proper discussion
... it shows we are working, but we should discuss the actions more
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To Heather and Manu. This move severely compounds my concerns I raised in the vc-http-api PR
<orie> merging from forks is how progress is made
Ted Thibodeau: +1 Fork of not-really-understood/described/discussed thing to even-less-understood/described/discussed thing is premature and likely to lead to less interop, not more
<heathervescent> @TallTed, would you like to be on the queue?
Orie Steele: I agree with manu about wanting to work
... there has been long conversation about VC-HTTP-API which has led us here
... forks should not be seen as anything combative to the general process
<kimhd> forks are not combative; the language in the work item is combative (as well as refusal to accept use case feedback)
... there's been no consensus on what the Traceability API people have been trying to do
<manu> I strongly disagree with what Orie is saying and the way he's presenting the information; what he is saying has not been my experience.
<tallted> repeating the same words again and again is not productive use of time.
... progress needs to be made to see if the changes are worthwhile
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 Heather
Manu Sporny: +1 Heather
Juan Caballero: +1 But haven't checked IIW schedule :D
<kimhd> or the week after
Heather Vescent: We might need to move this specific discussion to a more dedicated time/forum
Juan Caballero: There is a call in about an hour with Tracability Vocab folks where we can talk about this
Manu Sporny: +1 To give it a call
<manu> Meet next week anyway
Heather Vescent: Thoughts on meeting next week regardless of IIW? Regular time?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To discuss next week at usual time
... no objections, Kimhd might you be available to moderate next week?
<troy_ronda> It would be good to expand the scope beyond traceability - generically, have HTTP APIs to facilitate exchanges including mediation and links to wallet selection and authorization.
<heathervescent> -Juan_Caballero
Orie Steele: I support more time dedicated to this convo, and faster pace working
Orie Steele: Is there a 15m presentation on the traceability that you're working on? [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
<orie> rgrant links are in the propossal
Heather Vescent: Kimberly_Linson, CCG 101 introduction?

Topic: CCG 101 Developer to Developer Intro

<heathervescent> Thanks all for your agreement to discuss the work item at a call next week.
Kimberly Linson: Lets start with: "Why is there a CCG 101?" We want more people to contribute
... working with RANDA Solutions, we are passionate and excited for VCs
<juan_caballero> juan AND KALIYA'S
... personally, I have a 101 level understanding of these conversation topics, and now I need to understand the "next level"
... so in the 101 we have discussed how to handle that
Juan Caballero: doesn't allow co-author attribution, which is why we need VCs for IP ASAP... ( )
George Lund: i personally want to understand this space outside of profession
... lots of people coming into the ecosystem need an understanding of this technical space
Juan Caballero: CCG101 is more than welcome to bang on the DIF's FAQ working draft here:
Kimberly Linson: CCG 101 has identified a few topics we need help with from the CCG group
... "What is the path for first-time understanding?"
... there should be a collection of quality instruction/explanation
... "What does it mean to make a VC?"
... can the CCG 101 group see one built to lead us into additional questions?
<george_lund_(gds)> Just wanted to mention that we've already had great support from CCG members like Manu and Mike Prorock so thanks for that :-)
Heather Vescent: This community is built upon the collection of members/ people work
... the CCG group's goal is not to overburden anyone with jargon/ confusion
Juan Caballero: Raw materials that may help CCG101 efforts (sorry I can't contribute directly until 1July) can be found linked here:
... for the community, what feedback on how to proceed with possible Dev2Dev conversations?
Orie Steele: Followed some links, got stuck here: [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
Mike Prorock: I'd be willing to commit some of my time, concerned about having a limited perspective on information
<juan_caballero> oh and anyone in the group is happy to crash my DIF "office hours" every week, they've been pretty dead lately anyways!
Ryan Grant: [scribe assist by Orie Steele]
Ryan Grant: [scribe assist by Orie Steele]
<juan_caballero> +100
... developing specific parts to this technology keeps my focused on one part of this entire tech
Orie Steele: +1 To noting that we are all biased
<juan_caballero> recorded VC-HTTP-API special call sounds like a GREAT format for generating very urgently needed educational support for that project/family of projects
<juan_caballero> the VC-EDU calls are a PARAGON of transparent, open schema design, fwiw
<manu_sporny> You can't give people a 2 hour heads up and expect people to be able to shift their schedules around, Juan -- need at least a few days of heads up
<juan_caballero> that's why I emailed last week
Mike Prorock: +1 Building on a body of knowledge
<juan_caballero> you responded to the email, remember? ;)
<orie_> ^
Kim Hamilton Duffy: VCs are difficult to completely understand for anyone new. This attempt to work with the CCG 101 group can be a good move
<mprorock> that would be perfect
Heather Vescent: Any CCG 101 concerns?
... is there time to cover the next topic? Manu?
Ivan Herman: Theres an issue with losing a week for the work-items discussion. Just mentioning
<dlongley> we just scheduled a different agenda item for next week anyway
... prior scheduling makes next week difficult
<dlongley> (the vc-http-api/traceability stuff)
Manu Sporny: Suggesting Friday, same time?
<juan_caballero> deep apologies for dragging out the VC-HTTP-API stuff, Ivan and Manu!
Ivan Herman: Can keep on for additional time now to continue discussing
<juan_caballero> /me ��pete��
Ivan Herman: Proposed charter text to read:
Manu Sporny: Topic: Linked Data Signatures

Topic: Linked Data Signatures Charter

... in a VC, "proofs" are what we are talking about. Making an offical W3C WG to standardize the "proof" part of a VC
<screenshare> the bottom part of a VC
... this is not a specifically a VC, this is more commonly datascience
... Ivan, thank you for the charter, the floor is yours
Ivan Herman: The plan is to have a very focused charter
... important to understand, this is not solely designed for VC work. This deals with semantic issues also
... we would like to organize the charter for the community-at-large, but the VC WG can benefit from the work
... process-wise, the charter is a draft and is going through the W3C stages moving forward
... maybe early May will have a vote on finalizing
... we would need, from this and any other community, comments/feed back on the charter
... it would help to see community interest, the W3C loves seeing this
... one last thing, we haven't identified potential WG co-chairs
... we would like to have a co-chair from CCG, and one from the larger community
Markus Sabadello: Ivan, can you repeat where its best to voice support for the charter/workgroup
Ivan Herman: As much noise as possible is always good
Heather Vescent: Any final questions? comments?
... thank you Ivan for pushing for that last conversation
... that is the meeting! Thanks to everyone!