The W3C Credentials Community Group

Meeting Transcriptions and Audio Recordings (2014-today)

Go Back

Verifiable Traceability Task Force

Transcript for 2023-04-11

Agenda
https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=%5BAGENDA&period_month=Apr&period_year=2023&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-credentials&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date
Organizer
Orie Steele, Mike Prorock, Mahmoud Alkhraishi
Scribe
Our Robot Overlords and Benjamin Collins
Present
Nis Jespersen , TallTed // Ted Thibodeau (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com), Benjamin Collins, Orie Steele, Russell Hofvendahl, Ted Thibodeau
Audio Log
Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Recording is on.
Benjamin Collins is scribing.
Benjamin Collins: Okay I'll go and Scribe.
Nis Jespersen : This is a PR for the shift to the non-drafgt version of the UN/CEFACT vocabulary
Nis Jespersen : This Pull request ended up taking a significant amount of manual work to make sure that all of the terms resolved
Nis Jespersen : We have two approvals, I'll go ahead and merge
Nis Jespersen : This was the only PR for trace-vocab this week
Nis Jespersen : This is on agriculture, we pinged Russel, about half a year ago.
<transcriber> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Yeah this looks doable I guess.
<transcriber> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Allocate some time to catching up in a backlog of old traceability tasks but this continues to look doable.
Russel: This looks doable, I will need to prioritize the backlog to get time for this.
<transcriber> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Yeah that's good.
Benjamin Collins: What's up next we turn on subtitles.
Nis Jespersen : This is from Mahmoud who is not on today. We want to define what we mean by version 1. How can we progress this?
Benjamin Collins: I think we want to make concrete proposals. One would be to have criteria for credentials, freeze the version, and then any changes after that would need to go into version 2.
Orie Steele: Currently we do build a default vocab-expanded iri for any term not in the v1 context. The format is not very readable. We want to the IRI to be build for undefined terms to looker nice-r.
Orie Steele: It would be also nice that if you clicked a link that it should provide information that, "this is an undefined term, the issuer should use a better term".
Orie Steele: The coding side of this is easy once we agree to the data-model and i will link to the vc-data-model stuff that has happend since then
Nis Jespersen : We have three thumbs up on your suggestion. Can we formalize that to say what you said in this comment?
Nis Jespersen : Oh wait, I see it got updated. Any objections to the new recomendation?
Orie Steele: I didn't intend that url as a recomendation, but an example. We have two options, we can copy off what they're doing in VC v2, or we can give people the ability to distinguish.
Nis Jespersen : If we go with our own, would you still call it issuer-dependent, or undefined term?
Orie Steele: I would do "issuer-dependent". Let's replace the current vocab that we're expanding with to the one we know will be in the VC v2 would be the least contentious.
Nis Jespersen : Would you mind adding that to the issue?
Nis Jespersen : Any objections to using the VC working group term?
Nis Jespersen : Okay, marking as ready for PR
Nis Jespersen : This is from Vlad and assigned to Mahmoud. This is on EPCIS, Let's ping Mahmoud.
Nis Jespersen : The problem is making it working on the linked-data side. I suggest we close this.
Benjamin Collins: I don't think we have a concrete proposal on this one.
Orie Steele: In general we don't generate any JSON-LD for domain, range and inheritance. And we lack the experience to build with these pieces. I think Ted understands domain and range, but I don't see how we're going to make progress with the kind of comments we're seeing on it.
Nis Jespersen : Let's put a comment to that effect and mark is as pending close.
Nis Jespersen : For this the EPCIS I've put that aside because GS1 came out with their data model, which is more relevant to me. Let me ping myself on this.
Nis Jespersen : This is from me, we're calling ourselves trace-vocab, but we're trying not to define our own vocab. It seems like a misleading name for our project. It causes friction and resistant against trace-vocab like on the UN side. Trying to explain that we don't have not-shipped-here syndrome.
Nis Jespersen : Does the problem make sense?
Ted Thibodeau: We're not taking the schemas whole-sale so effectively we're making an ad-hoc vocab, saying these are the vocabs that make sense and using the terms as is.
Orie Steele: +1 Ted
<orie> maybe some more introduction text is necessary
<orie> @nis consider assigning yourself :)
Ted Thibodeau: We're saying, 'these are the ones to use'. So i think that trace-vocab is the way to go. We can describe our approach to make it more clear.
<orie> again, +1 Ted :)
Nis Jespersen : I'm happy to close this, but I wanted to bring it up.
Benjamin Collins: I can quickly summarize this. Our schemas are a lot larger than the examples that are being defined. So including Organization makes a schema massive, even though the example is only 50 lines of JSON. So the schema isn't representative of the object that it's trying to define.
Nis Jespersen : I understand, there's some cases where you can't do that.
Benjamin Collins: I think that we could have some threshold like 90& coverage and then pull that into our CI tools.
Nis Jespersen : I think we should be getting the requirements down before jumping into tooling.
Benjamin Collins: I'd be jumping into tooling to break it and see where and how it breaks before following up with the nuance.
Nis Jespersen : Sounds good marking as read yfor PR and assigning Ben.
Benjamin Collins: It looks like this has a Pull Request that's been merged. Can we mark it as done?
Nis Jespersen : Looking through the PR, it looks like there aren't any FIBO vocab, which is what I think it is.
Benjamin Collins: We can try to declare victory and see if anyone takes it away from us.
Nis Jespersen : Oh, I see it's a schema, but it's redefining all terms. I bet it would be easy to update those terms to point at something real.
Benjamin Collins: It might be something for the roadmap where we declare a requirement to use certain terms, which would cause us to come back to this.
Nis Jespersen : I think that might be going too far. There are terms that are not defined. I guess we can close this.
Nis Jespersen : Never mind, let's mark it as pending close.
Nis Jespersen : Finally something we can close. We just merged my PR for this earlier.
Benjamin Collins: This looks like a placeholder to comeback and restore previous changes.
Nis Jespersen : Let's mark it ready for pr and assign ourselves.
Nis Jespersen : I found this, we should not have invalid geo-coordinates. We're not using geo-coordinates as often we we expect.
Nis Jespersen : This one is from Vlad.
Benjamin Collins: There are some specific suggestions here.
Benjamin Collins: I think it might be expensive to map out all of the classes and then flatten the places where it loops back on itself.
Nis Jespersen : I'll assign myself and then confirm with Vlad here to see if what i'm suggesting here makes sense.
Nis Jespersen : GS1 uses british english and we want to use US english. It would be nice to have GS1 take a look at this.
Nis Jespersen : Actually I think we might be able to close this ticket because they took this action else-where.
Nis Jespersen : Never mind, let's close this if we find a duplicate.
Benjamin Collins: It looks like the last action was to add a pending close tag.
Nis Jespersen : That was half a year ago, let's close it.
Benjamin Collins: I think we can draft out the PR on the issue and if that's okay.
Benjamin Collins: My thinking is that we would have the JSON field values be correct to a specific region and then have the terms be the generic international version suggested.
Scribe-