Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/issues/468 ✪

Chris Abernethy: For issue 468 this is something Orie and I synced offline ✪

Chris Abernethy: This is about retrieving a credential which was previously issued ✪

Chris Abernethy: This is because the id is both optional and can be non-unique ✪

Chris Abernethy: One option is to have the id to not be included for revocable credentials and the id is provided by the server ✪

Chris Abernethy: This means the server will need to be able to add the id into the credential that is sent back ✪

Chris Abernethy: The other option would be to add another top-level attribute which be a way to reference the id ✪

Chris Abernethy: In the case of revocable credentials this top-level attribute would be required ✪

Chris Abernethy: I have implemented this in our implementation, and it works well ✪

Chris Abernethy: But i wanted to get feedback from other members ✪

Chris Abernethy: Orie, i don;t know if you've had a chance to read through issue 468 ✪

Orie Steele: I would like to see comments from all participants before we take action ✪

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: So id is optional, but can we say that id is required ✪

Chris Abernethy: The id is provided by the requesting party ✪

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Why can't we say, the party does not provide an id, and we provide an id on the server? ✪

Chris Abernethy: This would break interoperability with VC-API ✪

Orie Steele: As far as i'm aware it's undefined behavior developed from the issuance API ✪

Orie Steele: The group debated RESTful API's and didn't provide requirements around this area ✪

Orie Steele: In the case of the traceability-API, we are providing context around these use-cases ✪

Orie Steele: We're trying to reduce optionality and provide specific use-cases for interopability ✪

Orie Steele: The case is a CQRS flow where they have their own stable identifiers, and they know they want the id to be a specific id, and the issuers policy was to accept that, that would be a case ✪

Chris Abernethy: Would you say that if we forbid someone providing an id, would that be an option? ✪

Orie Steele: Right now it says that id is required for all of the traceability credentials ✪

Orie Steele: We can say the id MUST NOT BE present, and the server will provide the id ✪

Chris Abernethy: I would like to provide this as a third proposal as i think that would be better than the current proposals we have ✪

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: I think the idea the server is the one that assigns the id, and i think it's the cleanest solution ✪

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Another thing is the issuer field, i set it up so that issue field is always populated by the server ✪

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: So if you provide your own random issuer, it would be changed to the configured issuer ✪

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: It's a point of how much optionality do we allow to the request, versus how we define behavior on the server ✪

Chris Abernethy: I think i agree, and would like to see that as a separate issue ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/issues/469 ✪

Chris Abernethy: Reminder to have every add their comments to the issue ✪

Chris Abernethy: Next issue is a response to a verification request ✪

Chris Abernethy: Currently we provide a response that is true or false, and the response has a requirement on the verified field and not the verification field ✪

Chris Abernethy: In this case simply returning true or false is not very helpful, and having the verification array would provide extra context ✪

Chris Abernethy: I think we should only have it required when the verification is false ✪

Benjamin Collins: I agree with that, either when false or either an empty array when true is also an option ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc ✪

Chris Abernethy: This is something i wanted to get attention on, so i can add a "Ready for PR" tag next week ✪

Chris Abernethy: First PR is 629 from Nis ✪

Nis Jespersen : This is picking up the ones that need to be prefixed for ecommerce ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/629 ✪

Nis Jespersen : It's sort of based on that, and updated with the patterns that we've developed since then ✪

Nis Jespersen : This is addressing eCommerce and the requirements we have from CBP ✪

Nis Jespersen : It's a bunch of credentials that supports eCommerce data flows to insentivise parties to share data early ✪

Chris Abernethy: Unless there are any rejections, i'll go ahead and merge this ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/630 ✪

Chris Abernethy: Next one is 630 ✪

Nis Jespersen : This is adding revocation for expiration date and credentialStatus to ctpat certificate ✪

Nis Jespersen : We are having trouble with the test ✪

Nis Jespersen : PR 632 is doing the same thing, so I will close my PR in favor of that one ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/631 ✪

Benjamin Collins: What this PR does is provide proof with a specific JSOn schema for all of the credentials ✪

Chris Abernethy: Looks like Ted had some change suggestions, did you have a change to re-review? ✪

Ted Thibodeau: Yes, I'm good ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/632 ✪

Benjamin Collins: This is a change request that adds expiration date to CTPAt and adds credential status ✪

Benjamin Collins: It's the issue of credential status that we're having trouble with, of getting the added context to work with the jest tests ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/issues/405 ✪

Chris Abernethy: Is thereany objects to merging offline once the issues are addressed? ✪

Chris Abernethy: I'll leave a comment to indicate this ✪

Chris Abernethy: Would you like to add comments to 405? ✪

Orie Steele: Sure this is still being defined, and there are no actions to take here ✪

Chris Abernethy: I think i linked the wrong issue, let me sort ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/290 ✪

Chris Abernethy: The correct first issue was 290 ✪

Ted Thibodeau: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc ✪

Chris Abernethy: This one was opened by Vladimir, looks like Nis suggested we pick this up once we dive into GS1 modeling ✪

Chris Abernethy: Does anyone have any updates on this issue? Or can we assign anyone to this issue? ✪

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: I think i missed this ping, assign it to me and i'll track it. Hopefully before we go through it again ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/277 ✪

Chris Abernethy: Next issue is also from Vladimir about inheritance and not aggregation ✪

Orie Steele: This issue applied to how we build our context from our data model. Because of that we have some constraints on how we model our credentials ✪

Orie Steele: This is someone with a lot of experience with RDF and JSON schema, and asking "if i used inheritance would that break it?" ✪

Orie Steele: We should move the issue forward towards a concrete response, in this case it looks like a feature request ✪

Orie Steele: We need to steer this issue from a debate to a specific actionable request to resolve the issue ✪

Chris Abernethy: Next issue is 280 ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/280 ✪

Orie Steele: It looks like he's suggesting we use something than OpenAPI specification 3 ✪

Orie Steele: And I think that we should indicate that we're sticking with OpenAPI ✪

Chris Abernethy: Can we add a comment that says, we're not intended on deviating from our current tools and add "Pending Close" on the issue ✪

Orie Steele: We have this $linkedData struct we have in OAS, depending on how we do this is dependent on the tool that we could use to define heirarchies ✪

Ted Thibodeau: So it's a question of tool maturity? ✪

Orie Steele: It's also a question of what's be requested on the issue, we have simple simple tooling that doesn't support richer ontology management ✪

Ted Thibodeau: If the richer ontology management is desired, then the tool needs further work? ✪

Orie Steele: I think that's basically what's he's saying, the question is does everyone want that richer ontology management? ✪

Orie Steele: If we can define what those are, then we can approach it, but it adds to the complexity, so we're going to want to make sure the other participants want that complextity? ✪

Ted Thibodeau: This gets to a bit of who feels the pain? In general we don't want to put it on the user. We want to get uptake on interop. ✪

Orie Steele: The hard part for me is understanding what's being requested to estimate complexity ✪

Ted Thibodeau: It might be worth getting Vladimir to join a call instead of posting a ton of issues, this could be faster and easier ✪

Chris Abernethy: Does anybody know and work with Vladimir? ✪

Orie Steele: Nis can ping him to ask, but we want to make sure we move the issue forward ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/542 ✪

Chris Abernethy: Next issue is 542 ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/543 ✪

Benjamin Collins: This was a note to self and i think it was addressed so it can be closed ✪

Benjamin Collins: For 543 this was a note for how we standardize the definition of types in our schemas, so i think this one can be closed ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/385 ✪

Chris Abernethy: This one is assigned to Nis ✪

Nis Jespersen : I did play around with EPCIS a little but have not taken it across the finish line ✪

Nis Jespersen : Right now we're asking for some GS1 feedback and also including the examples ✪

Nis Jespersen : It's not super-related to the VC data model that came from GS1 ✪

Nis Jespersen : In my opinion EPCIS fits into verifiable credentials, i would love to spend a couple of days, this is asking for bandwidth toward furthering that ✪

Nis Jespersen : We made the decision that we weren't going to over invest in this, so i will unassign myself ✪

Nis Jespersen : If we could build that bridge, it looks like a no brainer, i would love that ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/406 ✪

Chris Abernethy: Next one is 406, opened by Orie ✪

Orie Steele: Francis Kim has a credential that represents a bank account, he asked the question but never followed up, so I will ping him on this issue ✪

Chris Abernethy: Next issue is 553 ✪

Chris Abernethy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/553 ✪

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: So we're having a conversation on a PR for how obvious our fake data should be ✪

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: We should have more obviously real data, or more obviously fake data ✪

Chris Abernethy: Do we have any privacy issues around this? ✪

Ted Thibodeau: I think it would be fine if it was company data and not individual data ✪

Nis Jespersen : This feels like a nice-to-have for a problem i'm not having ✪

Nis Jespersen : I think there is value in having something that feels recognizable ✪

Nis Jespersen : I think we should focus on realism to have real streets ✪

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: This was raised by Orie when he was trying to put examples to get coordinates, which were having bad coordinates ✪

Orie Steele: We were using random GPS coordinates, we should at least have valid coordinates ✪

Orie Steele: Does this identify ACME inc as a real company in the United states, or does this coordinates point to the middle of the ocean? ✪

Ted Thibodeau: It depends on what kind of system this data is going to get loaded into ✪

Chris Abernethy: Would it be worth modifying the issue to say the data should model what it's trying to portray ✪

Nis Jespersen : "Geo": { ✪

Orie Steele: In the case of issues with "fix all of the schemas", we should create issues on a case-by-case basis where we have a problem with specific credentials ✪

Orie Steele: We should be loading data into real systems and if we find errors in the data, we should file a separate issue for those cases ✪

Chris Abernethy: We're at time i will post the meeting minutes ✪

Chris Abernethy: I would like someone else to post the agenda and run the meeting next week ✪

Nis Jespersen : I can do that ✪

Chris Abernethy: Thank you, see you next week ✪