The W3C Credentials Community Group

Meeting Transcriptions and Audio Recordings (2014-today)

Go Back

Verifiable Traceability Task Force

Transcript for 2022-10-25

Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
Ben_Transmute: We were doing manual spread now.
Ben_Transmute: Oh that's right but for the audio.
<ben_transmute> Nis: welcome to weekly trace-vocab interop
<ben_transmute> Nis: make sure you sign the contributor agreement
<ben_transmute> Nis: today is vocab week, which means we will start with trace-vocab
<ben_transmute> Nis: then we will switch to trace-interop PR's
<ben_transmute> Nis: and then back to trace-vocab issues
ben_transmute is scribing.
Ted Thibodeau: Github is having issues with pull requests and issues --
Ben: This issue is for changing the certificate postfix to credential based on customer feedback
Nis: we have three approvals, any objections?
Nis: merging pull 599
Nis: Russell you have 597
Russell: This creates organic inspection certificate and handful of related schemas
Russell: it took a lot of research but was straightforward to implement
Russell: I can add a pull request for the new credential conventions from the previous PR
<pauldietrich_gs1> one comment. seems you have to dig in pretty far to see the USDA organic info. There are several other kinds of organic certification
Nis: next we have 598 from Russell
Russell: this is a wrapper for organic inspection, there is a review after the inspection which references the onsite inspection
Nis: any objections to merging 598?
Nis: Merging 598
Nis: next one is 600 from "me"
Nis: what is does it update steel and eCommerce workflows to add links to the description in the respec document
Nis: Any objections to merging 600?
Nis: Russell the last PR is 601
Russell: I submitted this very recently, will give people time to review it
Nis: We only have one approval, we can leave it for next week
Nis: PR 600 is still in CI, will come back to it
Nis: we have been through the PR's for trace-vocab, moving over to interop
Nis: Paul you are queued
Paul: for the organic certification, is that USDA, applicable to california and other teritories?
<orie> Great question
Russell: I think it mostly USDA, I can follow up with Mike to ask about
Paul: When there are specific names available, we might want to make that specific to point out the authority
Orie Steele: Messur has does a good job on FSMA, we would take a similar approach?
Russell: So the prefix would be USDA organic?
Orie Steele: If the intention is to make it specific to an authority, we would want to convey that
Paul: In the case of the US government, it would probably only need USDA
Orie Steele: The objective is not for it to be only in US, but to be clear where it is meeting the requirements for governments
Russell: yeah. this is for foreign imports and international processes
Russell: I will make that change and ask Mike about it
Nis: let's move onto PR's on trace-interop
Nis: first one is 451 and this is from me
Nis: this is addressing the different kinds of presentations that we support and it was outdated
Nis: whether it has been properly addressed it up for you to decide
Nis: we have one approval, otherwise we will need to give it more time
Nis: Any objections to merging 451?
Nis: there is one more, this is from Isaac, he is not on the call
Nis: this is about conflicting tests on conformance and interop
Nis: who approved it, can you elaborate on how it was done?
Ben: Chris is not here, normally we would hear from him
Nis: He's only touched the workflow instance join, which makes it isolated
Nis: It has three approves, any objects to merging 452?
Nis: Merging 452
Russell: Separate thing, i was looking at changing organic certificate to credential
Russell: Would we want to change CTPAT Certificate to CTPAT credential?
Ben: No, I think that's the specific name of the credential in this case, similar to Certification of Origin
Nis: moving onto issues. The first is follow up with QDT
Nis: My suggestion there was to close that, the question is was QDT help us with various steel tests?
Nis: but the answer is "no", it's about to units and nothing else
Nis: my recommendation is to close out that ticket and follow up tickets
Nis: Orie this is your ticket
Orie Steele: We can close it on the call right now
Ted Thibodeau: +1 Close 393 ... even better if could get a better title
Nis: And then we should talk about 594
<orie> ISO : (
<orie> impossible to read the tests.
Nis: What I then did was poked around where the standard bodies that do these tests, and also ISO
Nis: If you follow this link
<orie> have to pay for them... but they are defined by ISO.
Nis: the link resolves to something reasonable
<orie> better than anywhere else
<orie> I am a +1 to refering to ISO when we can.
Nis: We should not action on that any further, but pointing out a different source for the previous issue
<orie> despite not loving ISO's transparency model.
Nis: And the final one was measurement, which were related
Nis: I suggest we use the UN measurement, which is pretty applicable to what we need
Orie Steele: I agree, I previously made measurements from, we should use the UN instead of
Nis: How do we move the issue forward?
Orie Steele: Show the nquads as they are used today, and then show the updated nquads
Orie Steele: And if people like that we can move the issue forward
Orie Steele: That's how we should approach any semantic example issues
<orie> We can use to help argue on the information representations if we want.
Nis: wanted to bring those up first since i spent time on them
Nis: issue 313. Feels like we discussed this not long ago
Nis: Suggestion is to bump this up to 0.1 so we're not 0.0, and then there is talk about roadmaps
Nis: This one is pending PR any comments on 313?
Ben: I volunteer to be assigned to this
Nis: next is 350, which is what I'm addressing on PR 600
Nis: I suggest we merge 600 and then close 350
Nis: okay, merging 600 and closing issue 350
<orie> 600 looks awesome!
Nis: Next is issue 353
Nis: Orie this is your issue AWS test suite
Orie Steele: I can give an update on this, this test suite has continued to gain update
Orie Steele: The VS JWT and Json web signature 2020 tests are likely to be made out of date by the W3C verifiable credentials working group
Orie Steele: I think this is better handed with the verifiable credential test suite with examples
Orie Steele: And i think the complicated examples in the verifiable credential working group would be beneficial, so i will add a comment on the issue
Nis: 344 Orie this is you
Orie Steele: So we're looking at 344
Orie Steele: This is related to ongoing conversations in the verifiable credentials working group about ongoing expansions
Orie Steele: The proposal in the verifiable credential working group is taking about how undefined terms are handled
Orie Steele: If verifiable credentials do this for ts, then we wouldn't need to do it
Orie Steele: We should link this issue to them to get visibility on it
Orie Steele: I don't think there is an action item on our side, we can see how the working group resolves this problem
Nis: Next is 521, this is also from Orie
Orie Steele: Traceable presentations recipient, we don't have a way to represent the recipient
Orie Steele: The suggestion here is to add a recipient
Orie Steele: Will cross link this to the working group
Nis: next is 526, from Ted
Ted Thibodeau: I think it's ready for PR and hopefully self evident
Ted Thibodeau: We need a diff and then an intelligent choice of which changes are applied to the readme
Nis: Next is 357
<paul_dietrich_gs1> present-
Ben: This is for having the images be paired with the credential, and updating the CD for this
Nis: Next issue is 366 workflow examples to demonstrate events
Orie Steele: Paul just dropped off, this would have been something for him to comment on
<tallted> tangent -- who maintains the ccgbot? it should never do a `present-` because the minutes don't record "partial" attendance; you're either here for (some of) the meeting, or you're not (at all).
Ben: I think the action item here is to remove these
Ben: We will make an ticket internally to address that
Nis: Next one is from Mike
<orie> TallTed I think Manu or MikeP.
Nis: Russell do you know anything about this
Russell: This is a priority that I am working on
Nis: Russell, can you assign yourself to this issue?
Orie Steele: I already assigned you, can I add a 'Ready for PR' label to this?
Russell: Yes, that makes sense
Nis: Next is 399, Build context as a github/npm package
Orie Steele: Do we want to do this?
Ben: I dont think we should publish this, it's a script for a niche use-case
Ben: And if people want that script they can grab the script from this repo, adpapt and run it
Nis: Issue 528 is about Entity.entityType
Ben: We defined this, so it should be addressed
Nis: Moving on to 527
Ben: Right now our JSON-LD does not handle oneOf from schemas
Ben: I'm not sure how we would handle this in @context
Ted Thibodeau: It seems to be relevant, and rather than fixing our JSON-LD predecessor to address the construct, we're updating our schemas to not use the construct
Ben: What would the shape of the `@context` need to look like is something I don't understand
Ted Thibodeau: We had existing examples for JSON schema, oneOf does not exist in @context
Ted Thibodeau: It's kind of like domain and range and domainIncludes and rangeIncludes, kind of
<orie> sry, i had to afk
<orie> randomly
Ben: To support JSON-LD oneOf in JSON-SCHEMA, what would the @context look like?
Orie Steele: I don't know, i think this is a case where until you create it
Orie Steele: The primary guidance we leave on this issue is: if you can implement this is your code and suggest a solution
Ted Thibodeau: I'm concerned with throwing out a language feature because the tooling does not support it
Orie Steele: +1 Ted
Ted Thibodeau: Anyone can add information on the issue so that we can have a better handle on this when it comes up again
Nis: This is similar to the case of `allOf` that I also want to use
Nis: We're using json-schema and JSON-ld which means we need to use the lowest common denominator
Orie Steele: +1 Ted, I really like the domain and range comment/
<orie> we need that on the issue.
<orie> thats a hint at a path forward
Ted Thibodeau: I think bringining allOf complicates the use-case in a single way. If you use it then any any entity that is included also is a member of the class
Orie Steele: I agree, need to have time to build it for how to implement it properly
Ted Thibodeau: I can help with brain storming, but I am not a code
Orie Steele: If you get on the issue and rant about domain and range and how it relates to anyOf and allOf, and I might be able to parse that
<orie> We need domain and range comments on
Nis: can i assign you on the issue?
Ted Thibodeau: Okay, that's no problem at all
<orie> Thank you!
Nis: that was great, thank you for coming
Russell: I can post minutes