<kimhd> Okay IP note anyone can participate in these calls, however, all substantive contributors to any CCD work items must be members of the cct with full IPR agreement signed, and you can go to this w three CC G site to join.
<kimhd> That it's located here at this link and that will require you to have a w3 account first.
<kimhd> it's free.
<kimhd> And the text of the Community contributor license agreement is available at this link.
<kimhd> Call notes these Minutes and an audio recording of everything, Sam is call are archived in the meetings repo of cce github account and the link to that is here.
<kimhd> And just to yourself to speak on the call just type q+ into chat.
Topic: Introductions and Re-introductions
<kimhd> Okay introductions and reminders anyone new to the call today that would like to introduce themselves.
<kimhd> So just unmute yourself and talk.
<kimhd> Anyone like to reintroduce themselves.
<kimhd> Okay looks like we have a bunch of regulars today.
Topic: Announcements and Reminders
<kimhd> Okay announcements and reminders we were supposed to be changing it today, but I had a couple of problems, so we will be honest, which digit see next week, so we are here on zoom so.
<kimhd> that's probably obvious but yes next week, we will switch to just see we'll start with the in orientation at the beginning of it to just quickly show you how to use it scribe and everything.
<kimhd> will send out the link, which is just a web link you just join you don't have to install anything you can connect.
<kimhd> On a mobile APP they have Jesse has an APP you can use if you want, and then Lastly, we do have some conference bridges, if you prefer to call in over voice so those will all be in next week's meeting invite.
<kimhd> That is all that we have for the intro stuff so carrie if you're ready to take over with the ongoing discussion and open badge verifiable credentials think we're ready for you and I can paste the slides into here.
Topic: OBs and VCs, continued
<kerri_lemoie> awesome Thank you hear me okay cuz I haven't air conditioner on behind me, make sure i'm clear enough to be part yeah yeah okay.
<kerri_lemoie> i'm going to go ahead and share my screen.
<kerri_lemoie> And Hello everybody today I am working from from Rhode island i'm visiting family in England, so I am on one laptop about my my dual screen see my presentations pulling from a day.
<kerri_lemoie> And we this these slides are the same size we've been using over the past few weeks and i'm just adding content to them so For those of you haven't been on the call are all costs of farms me show you that what we're doing is discussing.
<kerri_lemoie> Open badges and verifiable credential matters as verifiable contentious we're just we're working on this at IMS billable badges work.
<kerri_lemoie> And we wanted to have these discussions here because we've been thinking this group has been talking about verifiable credentials and education.
<kerri_lemoie> And we thought well why don't we discuss what is one way of doing this one way of doing this one simple one credential is open badges.
<kerri_lemoie> So i'm not going to go through our decides because it's what the discussions have been every time but feel free to to walk through these.
<kerri_lemoie> and see my pretty diagrams here, especially insides two and four, and what I want to point us to, though, is side five because we're going to be sort of starting from here, and then going to slide seven so side five is like an overall example of an open badges vc assertion.
<kerri_lemoie> And so, this is a full on this is what it would look like or a close to what it should look like for an open badge and as a verifiable credential, this is still being worked on being proposed, at my Ms Ms global right now.
<kerri_lemoie> And then i'm going to take you here to slide seven, where we have two other examples, this is what we're going to talk about today, which is more focused on the actual.
<kerri_lemoie> content of the of the credential and in verifiable credentials is they were talking about the credentials subject.
<kerri_lemoie> And today we're talking about what a badge classic example of a verifiable credential crystal subject would look like So the first thing, given this side goes directly to the vc data model um spec i'm going to open it up here.
<kerri_lemoie> And so, this is a credential subject property.
<kerri_lemoie> And in this example, it has when ID, which is the in open badges this would be the recipient, this is a good example of a recipient.
<kerri_lemoie> And what they did in this data model example is they created from the College degree and i'm the type is a bachelor degree, that is a very, very simple use example of a credential subject.
<kerri_lemoie> The next one, is a little bit more complex, and this would illustrate something i'd be different in verifiable credentials and would be different in open badges which a perennial subject can be an array of claims, so it could actually be two different claims going to two different recipients.
<kerri_lemoie> And, but you'll see that the issuer you'll you don't see actually the issuer isn't in here, but it would be the same issuer for both of these.
<kerri_lemoie> So then, if you go back to the slides.
<kerri_lemoie> And you click on the second thing is i'm an example of an open badges batch class inside of credentials.
<kerri_lemoie> And this is what we're working on now in the proposal at IMS little.
<kerri_lemoie> So here looks a little bit different, and let me just good to have you here, so this is the same setup right, this is the credential subject.
<kerri_lemoie> And we have this idea, which is the recipient ID and i'm in a week or so when we have a chance we can talk about what could go in here for another bad right now in this example it's a decentralized identify.
<kerri_lemoie> And then in here, where we were talking what we've been talking about in this group around looking at this is Level two, which is a using schema.org property has credentials.
<kerri_lemoie> Which references and education or occupational credential and what we have in here you'll see it looks very simple it's very similar to a batch class.
<kerri_lemoie> And so we have this ID, which is the canonical URL that references a batch class batch class Jason O D we're saying this is a type batch class.
<kerri_lemoie> My name is summer summer you'll see in the documentation for of open badges in the open awesome robotics add the description.
<kerri_lemoie> And image of the badge and this year we can come back to this at some other point because there's issuer could be the same or different issuer.
<kerri_lemoie> The nature of the verifiable credentials going to make about today, but we can pass on if we don't get to it.
<kerri_lemoie> And then, this criteria and the tags some property alignments and then down here, where we have a little bit different is we have.
<kerri_lemoie> Evidence which in open badges was part of the overall i'm assertion what we're doing here, and I believe I got it right and that's part of what we're discussing is evidence has been reference to the hospital.
<kerri_lemoie> So i'm sorry the credential subject now has credential because it has credential pipe describes would essentially be the batch class for the content of the open badge being issued as her credentials.
<kerri_lemoie> And slide eight i'm going to go through all of these, and then we can just talk about it all on slide eight.
<kerri_lemoie> I just put some primary comparison points so in laughter verify look into subject can have an array of claims with multiple recipients, and right now there are no actual.
<kerri_lemoie> attributes for education and verifiable credentials just an example attributes that are in the data model and verifiable claims, with the batch class, we are, we are shooting the one recipient and one claim.
<kerri_lemoie> And they're already a bunch of badges attributes where we can describe this plan, so these already exists as context for this.
<kerri_lemoie> And we can actually add to this so, for instance, one of the properties, we would like to add as part of the magic or no proposal were suggesting is something called achievement type without solid lines is global's comprehensive learning.
<kerri_lemoie> Learning record the car we don't like what is this is achievement type and then you can add a type of.
<kerri_lemoie> This list of achievements these strings associated with a badge which we never had in batches before which I think is pretty great actually so he's been in badges for a while, because.
<kerri_lemoie> You know there's always been this whole like oh bad just something like small, it can be very significant and it's just as one thing that actually.
<kerri_lemoie> Open batch could always have been anything right given any of these things and others so um I think getting this type will actually add a lot of power to badness.
<kerri_lemoie> Okay, so i'm going to pause there that that those the only slides i'm showing today just so we can talk about this aspect, this part of open badges verifiable bit of just.
<kerri_lemoie> Stop sharing now.
<kimhd> And Eric is on the queue.
<eric_kuhn> Sorry, can you hear me.
<kerri_lemoie> I can.
<eric_kuhn> Okay, so can you explain the part of that you mentioned about the biomedical car and how the achievement, I worked with that because, are they isn't open badges that spec and the highest level to our spec totally different things So how do they work together and I guess, could you just.
<eric_kuhn> dive a little deeper into that.
<kerri_lemoie> I can, and then there are folks here who wants to steal our but i'm going to take a stab at it and then let's jump in here.
<eric_kuhn> So an open badge.
<kerri_lemoie> With first raised about 10 years old.
<kerri_lemoie> That specification and described to single achievement.
<kerri_lemoie> And it had a better two point O has basically three aspects main aspect, it has an assertion inside of assertion as reference for batch class that batch class opens is an issue.
<kerri_lemoie> And I see a lot is intended to be a collection of achievements that are published any of those achievements could be open badges.
<kerri_lemoie> So it is actually an array of achievements, so what would be great as it actually got more harmonized so if a car, has an achievement type.
<kerri_lemoie> It would be an array of achievements that each event would be saved in a car, has an open badge that specific achievement in the array would be badge.
<kerri_lemoie> But it could also be something out to be a degree or something else, so an open badges what we're saying is you can deliver a single if you've been like a single degree and a single.
<kerri_lemoie> certificate, as with the open badge specification.
<eric_kuhn> For would it also be correct to say that many open badges as vcs that are a combination of degrees certificate, you know, etc.
<eric_kuhn> All of those fees in your wallet people I feel are, or is it.
<kerri_lemoie> Now it's something different, so what we're not talking about yet in July, which will be taught after we figure out this magic part of it is, is what does a car version of a vc look like.
<kerri_lemoie> But what you could do is you can take open badges as verifiable credentials and present them, so the learner could present them together as their achievements.
<kerri_lemoie> But the car right now, mostly is from someone else may jump into the car can be presented by a learner as it is as one set of achievements to so that is something else, but right now.
<kerri_lemoie> I think it might be awkward right now to put verifiable credentials inside of a seal I think people are trying to do it, but I think we should pause on that and do it right, as we get to that stage that's that's my opinion on it anyway.
<kerri_lemoie> Did I confuse you even more with that answer.
<eric_kuhn> I still have some questions, but our next person.
<kerri_lemoie> Okay, well, if we can get back to what Anthony.
<anthony_camilleri> Sorry, I was talking into the ether ah so two questions um first of all.
<anthony_camilleri> In terms of the properties, you are showing on the credentials subject I Is this the idea that this is what a batch class would look like in a vc.
<anthony_camilleri> Or do you feel that some of these properties could be universal, for any verifiable credential and education, and then the second comment is.
<anthony_camilleri> In terms of let's say referring to the image that represents the badge i'm just wondering allowed if that belongs inside.
<anthony_camilleri> Let the inside the credential subject, or possibly in some kind of display properties tab one level higher.
<kerri_lemoie> So we are only talking about open badges map DC edgy Bradley we are specifically saying this is what it would look like with open badges in a vc.
<kerri_lemoie> And right now the image property for an open badges in the batch class.
<kerri_lemoie> To that that's all we're discussing right now, very simply, this is the work has been proposed today and master but.
<kerri_lemoie> Not not vc Thank you.
<kerri_lemoie> um but it's applicable, obviously, we would like folks at BCG to have a look at this and have some boxing yeah, let us know what you think about this does that make sense.
<anthony_camilleri> It does.
<kerri_lemoie> Eric i'm looking at the queue here I go one did you want to jump in.
<juan_caballero> No i'm good.
<kerri_lemoie> you're good okay.
<kerri_lemoie> i'm Andy.
<andy_miller> The example with multiple credential subjects is it important that the.
<andy_miller> The essentially the recipient be different, in other words, could you have multiple credential subjects all all with the same recipient in a single PC.
<kerri_lemoie> And a vc I believe you could but not an open badge so.
<andy_miller> Okay right, so the I got it okay.
<kerri_lemoie> I wanted to make a comparison.
<kerri_lemoie> Between these two, which is why should the vc example.
<andy_miller> got it and they did, but you wouldn't recommend that when it's when it's open badges you not do that, you don't don't.
<kerri_lemoie> Because will open badges is simply is is one claim to one recipient, I want to sure, so that is why it is one single focus there.
<kerri_lemoie> I know that folks are very interested in having multiple claims with NBC and I know that's going to come up in the future hall that's just not what today is about.
<andy_miller> For sure yeah I think it would have been actually a little confused me at least if if you could do that so i'm glad you thanks.
<kerri_lemoie> Great Thank you.
<ottomomy> hey I just respond to any they're only I think if you read the the vcs back, I think it is technically possible to do that, to put two different claim sets in a vc where the ID is the same between them and you're basically making two different sets of claims about the same entity.
<ottomomy> Why, you know suppose I suppose that a standards body or something could recommend that that approach would be valid that they essentially want to express multiple credentials all signed under a single bundle.
<ottomomy> But if you think about what you lose by doing that you lose the ability for the recipient or anyone to express only one of those credentials, at a time in a verifiable sense if you wanted to include them in a verifiable presentation.
<ottomomy> To prove the credential that you have you would have to present them together, you would not have the capability of presenting them apart.
<ottomomy> And I think if we wanted to achieve a capability sort of in like a transcript like use case.
<ottomomy> Where there are a set of credentials that do go together, and it is important at certain times to be able to see that that entire set has been delivered in whole.
<ottomomy> I don't think this is the approach that I would recommend using in order to accomplish that use case I would probably recommend just sort of wrapping each credential that is independently verifiable inside some broader structure.
<ottomomy> which potentially could be a verifiable presentation, or it could be just another receipt that includes you know, several others with the different schema.
<marty_reed> Yes, I just wanted to find great work the clues in collision of achievement tab I think is hugely valuable and kind of being able to bring these things.
<marty_reed> Together, and I will say that.
<marty_reed> You know, based on the guidance of this group there's a complex credential work group seven group is that we've.
<marty_reed> been working through discussing.
<marty_reed> You know what those what those multi expression complex credentials look like, so if anyone is interested in joining that please reach out to me and i'll happily invite you, and then and then i'm curious just from the.
<marty_reed> From the group's.
<marty_reed> We hear a lot about.
<marty_reed> verifiable presentation I just haven't seen it, and so you know utility requires.
<marty_reed> That you know, then you embed a vc inside of vc which is not that hard.
<marty_reed> Then you can re express it individually again not elegant but but timely and and so just curious how the group thinks about verifiable presentations or any any.
<marty_reed> Examples of that out there in the field.
<kerri_lemoie> Or the ice cubes in the QC she has a brief answer for this mighty can let her go.
<kimhd> In we're gonna say the more complete treatment to another call, I think the only other person I might ask to chime in would be one who's been working on these through the.
<kimhd> The vc http API groups, but essentially if the verifiable presentation is a way to repackage and prove control over identifiers in the embedded verifiable credentials.
<kimhd> And there are different things you know, depending on the signature suites that you're using you know you could that's where you can also start doing more interesting selective disclosure kinds of.
<juan_caballero> Work bad.
<kimhd> You can think of it as a way to just bundle a set of credentials together and say also proved control over it, and i'll call on one I see him on.
<juan_caballero> yeah so.
<juan_caballero> I think VP is i've always been a little less standardized than vcs so some people's weepies look like a vc.
<juan_caballero> And some get a little more creative, but the, but I think the, the main thing is that.
<juan_caballero> Like nate was pointing out there's there's what is allowed by the spec and then there's a separate question of like what's realistic for interoperability or portability so sometimes.
<juan_caballero> There are default assumptions made by lots of people that you wouldn't be breaking spec to vary from but it might make it harder to interoperate if you did, and one of those is like.
<juan_caballero> The you know, a VP is signed by the holder and it signs over the contents, a challenge and with the holders key material and.
<juan_caballero> How the vcs relate to each other is a little under specified I mean, some people have have been trying to specify it, but it may be, in a way that isn't really universal enough to be helpful.
<juan_caballero> So I think the the thing there, I mean the general assumption is that you know the the use case that most people that the assumptions, most people bring to every VP use case is that the subject of at least one of the credentials is the holder signing them, and I think some of them more.
<juan_caballero> hotly contested corner cases our VP is where the presenter who holds all the credentials is the subject of none of the sorry yeah and so that might be.
<juan_caballero> Maybe an unusually academic answer.
<juan_caballero> But it's what I got.
<marty_reed> make sense thanks one.
<kimhd> and carry out just real fast.
<kimhd> there's, as you can see in the comments there's a lot of extra stuff going on, and I think.
<kimhd> we'll come back to that later because, certainly when it comes to packaging up a set of verifiable credentials it gets interesting I think one of the reasons we wanted to.
<kimhd> defer this discussion is in line with why we're focusing on open badges first just to sort of pick something very concrete and specific that we can make more progress on before getting into the more complicated cases.
<kerri_lemoie> Exactly we're really just hoping to work on this like one simple aspect, because we know there are a lot more complex cases and that.
<kerri_lemoie> Presenting one of them badge is very different than presenting more than one, amongst many other credentials and when we started looking at all of this, and especially.
<kerri_lemoie> You know, with the learning and employment or record rapper we were trying to figure out okay let's just really sort of focused, because we know that that much market happened in this space.
<kerri_lemoie> But we know that this is a good, solid spec that a lot of people understand that already using so it makes for good discussion.
<kerri_lemoie> They could actually lead into these other points it's really great to see the discussion in the chat so that we know how to help them direction of the spiritual to distress.
<kerri_lemoie> And do any folks have any sort of questions other questions about.
<kerri_lemoie> You know the properties of open badges batch class and how and like has credential and how that works.
<kerri_lemoie> I know many of you do already understand open badges, but I just want to make sure that I will share that again.
<kerri_lemoie> This isn't a complete open badge, but it has quite a bit of of what could go into in a batch in the batch class.
<kerri_lemoie> Well then, i'm there was a discussion that I was going to pause on, but we have a bunch of time here, so I might as well get into it a little bit Oh, the mighty mighty fees before.
<marty_reed> I had when I didn't jump on the plane.
<marty_reed> In the evidence.
<marty_reed> Is there going to be a consideration for attachments or how are you thinking about that.
<kerri_lemoie> um I don't think so, I mean we haven't gotten to that discussion, yet, so I don't have a definitive answer on that, but I don't know I don't think so.
<ottomomy> You know, we can't answer questions here about sort of like what scope will IMS select for what open badges becomes, but we can talk about the generic sentence in verifiable credentials community about.
<ottomomy> If we have a known relationship between a credential subject and it sort of has evidence claim.
<ottomomy> There are other properties in schema.org that can be used to define evidence, and so, if there's a use case for attachments you know you might want to go through a standards body.
<ottomomy> To bring that up there, or we might come up with a very beneficial approach here, because schema.org does have properties, such as like full text or something like that of a creative work and evidence is based on creative work, so we can draw.
<ottomomy> You know extra stuff if we want if there's a profile link I definitely encourage small file sizes inside of credentials, if possible, so you might have some sort of like hash link approach that would be useful, sorry to jump the queue.
<marty_reed> yeah there's definitely I mean there's definitely use case but I agree 100% nate there's there's.
<marty_reed> A lot of size constraints out there.
<marty_reed> As you traverse different networks, especially whenever you're repackaging and resigning with.
<marty_reed> Did within that arena so just just curious about how everyone's thinking about that or how we, you know influence.
<marty_reed> Or at least understand best practice as everyone's thinking about thing.
<kerri_lemoie> yeah I think you know not that long ago there was a really great discussion on the CCD pile about embedding data in pdfs.
<kerri_lemoie> And I don't know when that was this is carmine weiner here I mean do you have any thoughts on embedding evidence in verifiable credentials in a broadly speaking.
<kerri_lemoie> Or, or about baking data into baking but embedding data into into graphics or images or files.
<kimhd> Oh, I mean on the general evidence side, I mean nothing really specific I we made some approaches in the past around sort of different visual representations, but I would say nothing very mature enough to really more discussion right now.
<kimhd> We can get into that later one do you have anything.
<juan_caballero> i'm not sure I understood the question is that was the question about linking to external files in the evidence document or was it more generally about ways of getting a visual representation to travel with the vc.
<kerri_lemoie> Yes, I went when it was both it was.
<marty_reed> It was about embedding.
<kerri_lemoie> And data like we have an evidence property badges and it was bad, including.
<kerri_lemoie> i'm not just a link where URL to the data but also like embedding the evidence like an image, or something like that, but also, I sort of parlayed that to.
<kerri_lemoie> embedding me see data into a file and with open badges we also have this history of calling badge baking.
<kerri_lemoie> where you can like deliver a badge with data inside of it which badge itself, right now, their images, but sometimes they could be evidence right, so I I put them together, but they are two separate things.
<kerri_lemoie> um but yeah I would imagine like keeping vc size small would would say it's probably not a great idea right now to embed like photos and files into a vc.
<kerri_lemoie> Is that true.
<juan_caballero> yeah I think I think that's generally the consensus.
<juan_caballero> I think that the issue with what what Marty thing in the chat here like linking to an APP dfs location is.
<juan_caballero> pretty good if you can pin the I pfs and sort of ensure the long term stability of that URL my my concern, always with embedding links to static content is that you know the signature breaks if that link breaks.
<juan_caballero> In terms of him bedding so there, there has been a lot of talk about.
<juan_caballero> Other yeah other ways to keep visual visual information it aligned sort of external to a vc there is some weird stuff happening in depth with.
<juan_caballero> visual stuff being sort of a verify your side maintained resource, but yeah sorry I maybe maybe go down rabbit holes.
<kerri_lemoie> No okay it's great to hear your your understanding of what's going on, this is about this.
<kerri_lemoie> i'll there's a lot of chat going on and then here and I haven't been following along Kim if you're following along you mind sort of like books in on this discussion.
<kimhd> yeah we basically we don't want to talk about this anymore.
<kimhd> supposed to see no, no, no, no, no need to apologize to just you know, trying to keep things back to the original let's see so.
<kimhd> Anthony can I call on you, because um let's see we had an agenda focused on open bad structure, plus.
<anthony_camilleri> years or so.
<anthony_camilleri> Because i'd like to make sure that we deal with carrie slides and that we closed them today ah so.
<anthony_camilleri> First of all, okay Would you mind explaining the slides back up it's a lot easier when I know it's challenging critical monitor so let's go back to the slide with the credential subject structure festival.
<anthony_camilleri> let's, so I think the question to the group, this is yes, so if we're looking at under the credentials subject and the way that has been proposed to move batch class on the credential from tech.
<anthony_camilleri> um does anybody have any comments on this other does anyone have a issues they think that this could create or problems, or do we think that this would actually be quite a good way to move forward in terms of a vc is an open batch let's start there.
<anthony_camilleri> Go ahead king.
<kimhd> Yes, I lost a where was the QA keep that up because there is a week where did the achievement type go i'm just not remembering where that was.
<kerri_lemoie> A prayer this example, let me put it in the other.
<anthony_camilleri> example if that was going to be my second question, then, just focus on the achievement type, if you prefer, we can focus on each event type first.
<kerri_lemoie> I perseids in this example here so, so it is type and then achievement type, this one is just a batch in this example.
<kimhd> And maybe stay on the second so achievement types, so this one is just usual eXtensible through Google json ld you get to define what you mean by are you to like badges to find somewhere in the context listed of i'm guessing.
<kerri_lemoie> Yes, so this is an open badge type of verifiable credential.
<kerri_lemoie> Okay, and achievement type would be in the context we're open badges be three.
<kimhd> Okay okay.
<kerri_lemoie> As part of a batch class.
<kimhd> Okay, great yeah this looks good but can you keep it here okay great.
<anthony_camilleri> Okay, I see key from the killer.
<keith_kowal> yeah I just I mean I think there's a lot of conversation before around this schema has credential I thought I understood it, but then I guess when we talked about some of the new.
<keith_kowal> What the spec was looking towards and I kind of lost context, again, I mean, first of all.
<keith_kowal> It doesn't seem like this is normally how schemas are represented in the specific the vc specification, I mean normally there's a different block where you represent schema and you provide a.
<keith_kowal> URL to it, but more importantly, I mean mostly it within normally within vcs if you declare, you have a vc and your subject the vc.
<keith_kowal> That you mean you basically are implicitly saying that this person has this credential, so why would you even need to reference this reference back to the schema.org has credential thing.
<kerri_lemoie> that's an excellent question i'm going to refer a different, it is still here because they can work on this a bit before I got too involved as much as I am now me Would you mind.
<ottomomy> Taking a quick stab so first of all, the the usage of.
<ottomomy> The word schema here on the screen is not the same as the usage of the schema to describe the stigma of this.
<ottomomy> Of this whole verifiable credential the schema here is just a reference to the schema.org namespace.
<ottomomy> which contains the property has credential, and so the credential example that you're looking at here makes one simple couple couple claims makes it evidence claim and a credential has credential claim.
<ottomomy> The host credential claim is sort of the meat and potatoes of what we've been talking about in this group for the last couple months, which is the idea that there is a defined achievement and that the subject of this credential has that achieved they have met the criteria of a.
<ottomomy> That has been defined by the credentials Creator, you know it's a bundle of criteria educational opportunity, maybe an image metadata it's all this this this define the thing like here is a degree in computer science.
<ottomomy> A bachelor's of science, you know in computer science separately that could be a defined the credential and we're making the achieve the claim that.
<ottomomy> This credential subject has that thing, and so, if you wanted to express, what is the schema of this credential.
<ottomomy> That would be what you're saying is that this is a defined achievement credential where there is a has credential relationships or at its core, and then the the properties of the specific credential that this learner has.
<ottomomy> This is an example drawn from IMS open badges were which has the vocabulary for all those different properties, mostly drawn from the schema.org vocabulary, as well as the humps.
<ottomomy> May I.
<keith_kowal> just say, like every vc that we issue today has contents in a bit and we don't have this I mean we issue a degrees we issued diplomas today as vcs using vc attributes per the vc spec and we don't need to have this has credential thing so.
<keith_kowal> If we're trying to align open badges to vcs, why do we need this thing when it's to me it's no different it's a different type of payload it's but you're trying to do the same thing Oh, thank you Lee.
<ottomomy> And i'll make only one brief response when you go back to the queue.
<ottomomy> That the generic concept of a defined achievement is powerful and a defined achievement that has a different type and has come in representation and ability to be serialized across.
<ottomomy> Many different types of that achievement is a powerful concept, and so, if you had eight different schemas to represent a different credential types, one being degree, one being.
<ottomomy> certificate, one being volunteer opportunity and all these different things that have common attributes, such as criteria.
<ottomomy> For completion and the notion that the the creator of this thing is the entity that can confer this on you.
<ottomomy> If you did those all in different ways, then you've got to build consumer software to handle all of those different schemas whereas if you build all of these different use cases with.
<ottomomy> One common defined credential schema that's pretty powerful in terms of building an ecosystem, where it's affordable to build consumer software.
<anthony_camilleri> Okay, thanks for being sort of I believe TIM isn't.
<kimhd> Actually nate address what I was going to cover did we do I see Eric on the queue up did we cover what eric's question was.
<eric_kuhn> uh no I was gonna ask, or is there, like a use case document tying back to when these this open badge type of model would be used like sister kp 12 buyer and.
<eric_kuhn> You know coursera life courses, you know what's the It is this whole discussion tied back to a set of real world examples that we discussed earlier that I missed.
<kerri_lemoie> Is K, I think that open badges or is a decade the old spec that started at mozilla foundation and over the IMS global in 2017 and.
<kerri_lemoie> It can be used for all of those books and to there are like 10 years worth of use cases and samples, so we could probably pull something up, but all of those you mentioned are true, they are used for everything from you know after school programs to.
<kerri_lemoie> Your recognizing courses to recognizing certificate programs really runs the gamut and they read they really are used to recognize one single type of achievement or still that could happen like anywhere that you type.
<kerri_lemoie> Two is very broad, in education, occupational applications.
<eric_kuhn> I see So the idea here is that we get this sort of nomenclature right and then, if i'm a student in the fifth grade graduating, then I would get one of these for that achievement.
<eric_kuhn> If i'm completing a course in college I would get one of these, or if I completed a course on Microsoft learn i've get you know, a vc with this type of data object that.
<eric_kuhn> That outlines what this achievement is and like that that whole system is based on what we're talking about now, or is there a big looming feel our type of other spec that we're not talking about now that totally changes what I just spent in.
<kerri_lemoie> that's right, so what we're talking about see I don't even see, I have highlighted inside here is the IMS global open badges specification that describes when issue.
<kerri_lemoie> And let's do our specification is a separate specification but open badges can be inside of a car as a single achievement that are listed in a car.
<eric_kuhn> Okay, and a car would be its own BC that's like a single vc with lots of different achievements line item.
<kerri_lemoie> I tested excess that's it that's a potential possibility.
<anthony_camilleri> And maybe this is a good time to take.
<anthony_camilleri> My own spot on the tool.
<anthony_camilleri> First of all.
<anthony_camilleri> I would like to just reinforce what an eight sets about the achievement type in the sense that understanding what the has credential is actually representing has.
<anthony_camilleri> Gone on use cases all afternoon it's it's a very, very, very useful feature because it allows us to explain it, this is a badge if it's an assessment it's an entitlement.
<anthony_camilleri> And as we move further along it would also allow us to relate these concepts to each other and maybe we wouldn't necessarily wants to let's say specify the relations ourselves but it opens up those possibilities.
<anthony_camilleri> To answer a little bit more, the question on whereas this asked for more specifically in the use cases and the, why are we focusing on this, and the reason we're doing this is.
<anthony_camilleri> What firstly as Kerry said, I mean open badges is a it's an established standard, it has a very strong.
<anthony_camilleri> Open Source Community behind it and you know you can't do anything in this space without treating open badges but secondly open badges have the lovely feature that they are relatively simple so starting with an open badge and figuring out what an open badge could look like.
<anthony_camilleri> is a good way to move the discussions forward about what a basic verifiable credential for education moves forward.
<anthony_camilleri> In the meantime mighty group has started to work on the complex credentials and is trying to figure out, then how let's say these things would work with more complex descriptions.
<anthony_camilleri> Of the basis of this work and will slowly begin to bring this back to the main group for once we finalize the open bachelor.
<anthony_camilleri> So I just wanted to let say remind of this approach because let's say there's a logic there all the building it in in this way and isn't really about.
<anthony_camilleri> The preferring open badges, but it really is a matter that would say open badges being so foundational also give us a good foundation to move the world forward.
<kerri_lemoie> As well said, thank you very much, I can see the queue so someone could let me know who the next.
<anthony_camilleri> Keith why don't you just beat your comment it's a lot easier, I think.
<keith_kowal> Well, I think I totally get the the need for achievement types and I, and I echo that.
<keith_kowal> ability to group badges but I guess the question i've been why don't we use the the type fields provided within vcs because I think that would you know so.
<keith_kowal> You could you can, in the context you could have a listing of types and then you could actually list out the type of credential in a type field.
<keith_kowal> And then you know that would make it much easier for standard like presentation exchange to consume that type right, because I think.
<keith_kowal> You know presentation exchange and the input descriptor allows you to specify well it's pretty open, but it makes a lot of sense that you would put type in there, I think some companies are already doing it that way, instead of schema.
<keith_kowal> So why not, why not move more towards a tight construct instead of this has credential achievement construct which still seems like something new to me like no i'm not really seen before, where I have seen pipes before.
<anthony_camilleri> May I call on needs to answer that because I believe you have already answered this in the chat.
<anthony_camilleri> Or if nate isn't available, maybe carrie could go.
<kimhd> nate seems to be unmuted I think.
<kimhd> That we should carry as well.
<anthony_camilleri> Okay, the comments that was written was that.
<anthony_camilleri> i'm not sure which way around it is but that's one of the i'm trying to find it in the chat history but uh pair one of the concepts only supports IRI is, while the other one supports references to formalize to 40 tables with the onset of the nate has written earlier.
<kerri_lemoie> I don't know if I can speak to let me quote about that i'm sorry.
<ottomomy> Sorry guys i'm on vacation and I was.
<ottomomy> Making coffee and breakfast on what I was mentioning is that achievement type is a specific term that originated in IMS global car.
<ottomomy> And that term expects a string and there is a particular defined vocabulary ncr it's likely that open badges will sort of pick that up kind of as is it's an optional property.
<ottomomy> And the overall concept of credential type is also a useful concept but, again, we have this idea of a.
<ottomomy> sort of reusable defined credential structure where there are several different types of credential that can use the same schema and how that gives us benefits for cost of implementation.
<ottomomy> And sure yeah we make great sense if you wanted to put it in the type property and may, and so you know I am so i'll have a conversation about this in the open badges work urban maybe when the achievement type.
<ottomomy> feature is discussed, maybe, people will say, well, now that we're here in a world of a verifiable credentials, it makes more sense to just have three types and.
<ottomomy> credential type and will do verifiable credential then open badge then some other IRI for the ultimate achievement Type two layers down the schema over.
<ottomomy> we're defining the relationship here between the the credential definition and what its type is and the ability to be able to express credentials of different types in the common schema.
<ottomomy> I think that has a lot of benefits and i'm really interested in exploring and building an ecosystem out around that idea, so I see that there is a useful difference between the credential type and achievement type.
<anthony_camilleri> nighttime not for that you've fully answered the question because I think the I if i'm not mistaken, the question is about having type and achievements type, both within the has credential rather than.
<anthony_camilleri> Because, if you look at what's on screen under ID we have tied.
<ottomomy> yeah ones and irin ones not.
<ottomomy> The difference that we start with.
<ottomomy> I mean it's just putting a term from car in the way that car did it It may be that if this group advises the bad be done a different way that.
<ottomomy> The open badges work group I mean we've got representatives here on the call will hear it, and I think it It certainly makes sense to maybe say oh OK, we can have an array of types in the credential type property and the second one will just be an IRI for the concept of batch.
<ottomomy> Totally reasonable.
<ottomomy> says in the chat it makes sense that there's a technical type in a conceptual type and that those are not completed there's an argument to be made that direction as well.
<kerri_lemoie> yeah These are all good points and it's the first time we've actually really discussed talking about achievement type with open badges specifically in this group to so it's great to hear all of those perspectives.
<kerri_lemoie> Are there other folks in the queue right now.
<anthony_camilleri> Who is currently empty.
<kerri_lemoie> Okay Anthony did you have thoughts of where you want to take it from here, we have about 10 minutes left.
<anthony_camilleri> I didn't have any particular thoughts.
<anthony_camilleri> Where where we wanted to take it.
<anthony_camilleri> Further from here, honestly, so I think he either over to you, or we could open it for just general comments.
<kerri_lemoie> yeah why don't we do that does anybody have any general comments about this, as it stands.
<kerri_lemoie> i'll leave this up here for now.
<kerri_lemoie> Oh yeah.
<phil_barker> Can I jump in film.
<phil_barker> i've just got a question we.
<phil_barker> a while back, we spent quite a few.
<phil_barker> coins discussing sort of high level conceptual things that might be covered by verifiable credentials.
<phil_barker> honing down on three in the end, which were.
<phil_barker> can't entirely remember but activities credentials stroke, qualifications and a third one, which I think something like affiliations, where do they fit into this type of not on your where's the information that this is a.
<phil_barker> credential stroke qualification.
<kerri_lemoie> That Anthony percent from the cues and answer to those questions.
<anthony_camilleri> Ah, well, I actually would.
<anthony_camilleri> be similar and they can answer it while at it.
<anthony_camilleri> Oh, under this model, these would be different, what I pulled.
<anthony_camilleri> Different types here um.
<anthony_camilleri> I think when we finish all the work we might need to go through the naming of things I really don't want to facilitate naming of things right now.
<anthony_camilleri> But, to answer your question directly and achievements type could describe an activity to describe an entitlement you could describe the qualification I believe there's some examples here um but my.
<anthony_camilleri> My other question which was really.
<anthony_camilleri> hairy is.
<anthony_camilleri> If you were going to go in this direction with open badges what I have been wondering to myself allow that is that yeah, what do you need the type called bad because.
<anthony_camilleri> in the sense that we would have saved this new batch class structure that, especially if it included achievement type of could be used to describe pretty much any educational concepts.
<anthony_camilleri> And a badge isn't an educational concept per se and badges own way of describing educational concepts unless i'm getting very confused.
<anthony_camilleri> I would say, the whole thing is that I would say the badge would contain one of all these other things now, I say this from the position of not being an open badge expert, so I might have some conceptual confusion over there, but would appreciate it if you could clarify.
<kerri_lemoie> Sure um well this achievement.
<kerri_lemoie> Type comes from the car, so it is a property of the car and this is so that if a badge is one of the achievements in a car, it can be indicated as such.
<kerri_lemoie> And so we are proposing right now just just to start this discussion at the working group to you know, use the same properties that are already being used in a car.
<kerri_lemoie> i'm an overall the Anthony and open badge is both a technology, but also a and a description of an achievement right, so it is both at the same time.
<kerri_lemoie> But yes, this specific property, we would still need that because it is needed in car and if we're using the same properties and that's what decided on them we would keep that.
<kerri_lemoie> In the list and into in a way, I think, actually would be great if we kept it in the same we do do it this way is others said because.
<kerri_lemoie> If I have in my verified presentation, or just like generally in the world, I have a vc that is a badge, but I also have a vc that is.
<kerri_lemoie> A potential that could be a difference between the two, and what I don't see on this list for sealer, though, is.
<kerri_lemoie> Is micro credential and and i've noticed over the year so there's been what I think, in my opinion, is a conflation between open badges and micro credentials and this assumption that every open badge isn't maker credential.
<kerri_lemoie> which I don't think that's true my potential is its own type of credential that can be represented by an open badge so that opens up a whole philosophical discussion that probably goes beyond assessing some of the specifics here.
<anthony_camilleri> um okay so um.
<anthony_camilleri> i'm next on the cube I will only take one sentence, because I see others with it um I from my personal perspective, I very much support the idea of the achievement type, but they would have significant reservations about taking the cla list of achievement types, as even recommended.
<anthony_camilleri> We tried doing something with this list in Europe, and it cost us nothing but pain and we gave up trying to work with it, I could speak more at length and other time as to the reasons of that.
<anthony_camilleri> I see.
<anthony_camilleri> On the queue that are there are comments from Keith which I would urge you to say or a lead and I also see Phillip on the cube, so I will put Philip on the queue first and then Keith if you don't mind justify your chats verbally, I think it will be a lot easier.
<phil-t3> I just wanted to point out that, in the context of badging I think one of the reasons that has largely been.
<phil-t3> redefined, if you will, and colloquial use as a micro credential is twofold one is that in doing the in doing so in the academic world it moves it away from assertions that have credit involves, which means a whole other round of.
<phil-t3> political discussions with institutions, because only certain parts of institutions are are allowed to assign and award credit, and so one of the reasons why that.
<phil-t3> Open badge to call in that caught that connotation was to separate it from the things that typically are under the control of the provost and a registrar so there's there's that history that has to be.
<phil-t3> Considered in this, and the second is that the open badge in one sense, was defined initially to be as.
<phil-t3> As applicable to the granularity of the issuer as they wish, so you could define an open badge to be a very, very tiny thing or an open badge to be a culmination of a several years worth of work, because the badge itself had no other way of.
<phil-t3> of providing anything about the magnitude of the achievement and the work that was involved in it.
<phil-t3> And, as a consequence that was both a plus and a minus because it meant that people receiving the badges had no real sense of Is this a big piece of work or to the person just show up for class that day.
<phil-t3> versus, this is a PhD know leave it at that.
<anthony_camilleri> Okay, thank you very much, Philip i'm going to pass the floor to Keith.
<keith_kowal> um yeah basis echo what I said I think i've been talking with Kerry and others it's like you know.
<keith_kowal> So let's say we come up with this standard, you know I think you know and we're interested in this, but we have to build you know let's say P O co things like that, so we would most likely use.
<keith_kowal> Common you know standards, as we see them developing and you know, in the US, at least presentation exchanges is emerging as the dominant standard for making proof requests.
<keith_kowal> For these type of credentials, so I think my question always come back to like.
<keith_kowal> How we're going to approach that like today proof requests often ask for things like schemas or four types, which is you know still out a lot of complexity about it, but now we're.
<keith_kowal> adding another layer of complexity this concept of achievement type and I can definitely see.
<keith_kowal> The us having a treatment types in the Europe having achievement types and Australia having achievement types, because no one can agree on what achievement types are what the list should be.
<keith_kowal> I think it's just you're adding another layer into complexity, for how to verify or would actually get this data and I understand we're not like there's a lot of runway, we need to figure out this stuff, but I think these are just some that really questions to start maybe thinking about.
<anthony_camilleri> I see Kim on the cube can, I believe.
<anthony_camilleri> You will be next on the queue and also have the honors of closing the meeting.
<kimhd> Okay, great.
<kimhd> yeah I would just have to Keith.
<kimhd> provide some specific structural examples of what he's talking about is unfamiliar with the presentation change spec and so you know, I think.
<kimhd> i'm not i'm not really seeing.
<kimhd> The comment about like how to say i'm not seeing how anything that we're doing here precludes or makes presentation, a change more difficult, I mean maybe if it's.
<kimhd> A certain interpretation that he's making that Keith you're making about how it would be used in presentation I shane show, I was wondering if you could just write up something to show what you mean and we could, in fact.
<kimhd> Talk about that in the next meeting, or, if you want to send it to the mailing list that would be good to.
<kimhd> Very also very interested in using these with presentation, a change but i'm not really seeing the specific problems so.
<anthony_camilleri> Okay, I see a lot of consensus.
<anthony_camilleri> From the group on this is 6pm CET European time i'm sorry I don't know Pacific.
<anthony_camilleri> Thank you everyone for joining the call see you next week, hopefully, we will kick the tires on the gypsy Thank you very much for a super productive call.