The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

CCG Verifiable Credentials for Education Task Force Telecon

Minutes for 2021-08-02

<phil_l_(p1)> I'll give it whirl
Phil Long is scribing.

Topic: Introductions

<phil_l_(p1)> intros or reintros asked for
<phil_l_(p1)> moving on ...

Topic: Announcements

<phil_l_(p1)> W3C VC announcements of meetings this coming week.

Topic: Use Cases

<phil_l_(p1)> Use case reviews for today's agenda
<phil_l_(p1)> Brief review of GitHub for IMS GLOBAL re: OBv3 proposal has been presented (making open badges VC compatible)
<phil_l_(p1)> Some discussion/pushback in the comments of the discussion.
<phil_l_(p1)> Both the OBv3 proposal for open badges and the CLR are important to this community.
<phil_l_(p1)> Use Case review (8 uses cases in issues of GitHub)
<phil_l_(p1)> issue #5 - who can submit use cases and how? A google form was set up for W3C VC use cases. The form is set up and the issue is, pending comment closed.
<phil_l_(p1)> Issue #5 closed.
<phil_l_(p1)> Kerri went through the use cases and tagged them to find commonalities and differences.
<phil_l_(p1)> Most use cases fit within the general "trust model". The point of these use cases is to inform how the work of the W3C VC-EDU workgroup.
<silent monday morning> or lasered focused on the use cases.... (Dimitri)
<phil_l_(p1)> Interesting that all the use cases are issuer to subject. But it's valuable when you're the subject presenting to someone else (job application or to a new school program). It would be good to have more use cases in that category.
<phil_l_(p1)> Harder to come up with use cases that aren't issuer to subject.
<phil_l_(p1)> Lot's of times credentials are subject initiated - but with VCs the subject initiated use cases were presented by Kim and Nate.
<jim_goodell> mic issues
<phil_l_(p1)> Dimitri - DCCC: which form do the use cases follow in the DCCC wallet development. The confusion is that the recipient is often initiating use case and the subject then responds
<phil_l_(p1)> issuer to subject vs. subject to issuer....
Phil Archer: Who is the focus of the interaction and what direction does that take? IN a presentation, a subject sends a VC in response to a request. [scribe assist by Kerri Lemoie]
<kerri_lemoie> ... Make an abstraction of the protocol distinct from the sharing
Kerri Lemoie: Phil_li: the holder wants to get the request to the third party but the protocol requires that the verifier requests it.
<phil_l_(p1)> It's ok if the use cases are focused on the issuer as long as the protocols supports initiating the transfer from both sides, issuer and third-party recipient or relying party.
<phil_l_(p1)> as long as those how attend the calls understand the scenarios that's good. But more use cases would help.
Kerri Lemoie: Phil_l: In the presentation, the holder can construct a stack of credentials, can use selective disclosure to withold attributes. Not clear how that is expressed when the relying party gets the subset and the relying party wants more.
<phil_l_(p1)> the current proposal for handling progressive disclosure through a series of request, similar to GNAP, request a set of attributes, now please present this second set of attributes... etc.. should make it explicit in our use cases.
<kerri_lemoie> This is the data model doc this group is working on:
<phil_l_(p1)> GNAP protocol explained - the spiritual successor to OAuth2 grant negotiation and authorization protocol - an iterative set of request. It's not quite central yet to our work. The HTTP-API is more central to the VC CCG. We have the envelope data model in the VC spec, here in VC-EDU is working on the payload spec, the HTTP-API is working on the exchange protocol. How do we request and express credentials?
<phil_l_(p1)> All of the discussions about HTTP-API influence policy and should be discussed in this group. This group needs to explain why, and maintaining the learner at the center.
<kerri> we're just looking at the tags assigned to the current set of use cases.
<phil_l_(p1)> The question is whether a use case (a learner) request from an issuer (e.g., a non-traditional set of individuals) and ask the issuer to verify that.
<jim_goodell> This seems like a valid use case. e.g. Reverse transfer kind of request.
Kerri Lemoie: +1 Jim
<dmitri_zagidulin> what is a reverse transfer?
<phil_l_(p1)> That sounds like it's 'subject' initiated. Particularly work experience related learning and as an employee of the company they want the employer to recognize.
<phil_l_(p1)> Jim notes this sounds like reverse transfer - like as a use case.
<phil_l_(p1)> reverse transfer - student transfers from a CC to a 4yr and starts taking courses. In taking these at the 4yr they believe they may have completed the courses required of the AA from the CC and requests that the CC consider the 4y courses they've completed as equivalent to the missing courses from their CC degree program they left before completing.
<phil_l_(p1)> The model of the reverse credential is related to a military context where some one has attained military achievements and these may be requested for consideration as credit worthy toward a degree award by an educational institution.
<jarlath> I'm not sure how tthis conversation intersects with the Credit for Prior Learning conversation
<phil_l_(p1)> the progressive disclosure pattern may be able to support the non-traditional credential request (employee asking for work experience to be recognized toward some assertion of a credential from the employer).
<jim_goodell> ... and progressive trust
<pl comment> CPL conversation is exactly what this conversation is about.
<phil_l_(p1)> These can be connecting in a use case such as when a criteria for credentials has yet to be defined. E.g., NIST has a criteria for new set of skills in cybersecurity. Person is out in the workforce and realizes they have met these new criteria and can go back to an issuer to request that recognition and award.
<jarlath> @Kerri I'll endeavor to attend more of these meetings so I'm more up-to-date with the conversation overall - thx
<kerri_lemoie> All good @Jarlath. Thank you for joining!
<phil_l_(p1)> If there is a machine readable definition of a new set of skills or abilities this can be presented for consideration with evidence of the individual's claim for satisfying them.
Kerri Lemoie: Phil_l: third party may provide an assessment to support assertion of skills learned on the job. Comptia etc - training may use testing service. Need clarification on who is making assertion.
<phil_l_(p1)> There are a series of interrelated use cases which involve a holder who believes they have achieved demonstration of skills or abilities. The question is where is holder deriving getting their evidence from?
<phil_l_(p1)> Thanks everyone.