The Verifiable Claims Task Force

A Task Force of the Web Payments Interest Group

Verifiable Claims Telecon

Minutes for 2016-04-26

Gregg Kellogg is scribing.

Topic: Credentials Transparency Initiative Alignment

Dave Longley: We discovered that VCTF and Credentials CG and CTI have different but complementary scopes. we want to be sure terminology is alligned. We determined that we differ from CTI.
… The VCTF is focused on modeling a claim for person awarded thing on date, where CTI describes a set of things that might be awarded.
… VCTF makes claims that a person holds a degree (eg).. CTI says that a certificate is a credential and there’s no concept of a claim. They just model different types of certificates.
… Unfortunately, that means the term “Credential” is in conflict. From VCTF, the term “Credential” in CTI is more like a certificate type.
Manu Sporny: We’re just raising this as an issue. We’ll meet on Friday to discuss ways forward.
… THe key thing is that the actual data may be using the word “Credential” in three different ways.
Stuart Sutton: CTI has also been struggling with these definitions. We’re dealing with a broad set of concerns. The language used across the is used in different ways. FOr organizations, things holders have, and the relation between two things.
… It’s inherently confusing in the wild. When we talk about it on Friday, we need to come up with something that will resonate with the community.
… CTI’s been watching VCTF.
Shane McCarron: There are other W3C activities that use Credential as well, that are in conflict with our usage.
Dave Longley: We believe we're using the most commonly used version of "credential" by using the dictionary definition
Manu Sporny: Based on the way the spec is now, we use the dictionary definition for Credential and Claim. “A Credential is composed of a set of Claims”.

Topic: Review of Questionnaire Status

Manu Sporny: Last week, we had 18-20 responses. This week, we have 35 responses, so we’re gaining!
… We’ll ask again to weigh in this week. The responses so far are very positive. We’ve already surpassed the number needed by W3C, but we’d like 20 organizations saying they’ll participate in the work; we have 15 now.
… I know there are at least 10 companies that are interested, but haven’t yet responded.

Topic: Verifiable Claims Data Model Specification

Dan Burnett: Basically, there was an original CG spec that included a number of different items. At a minimum, we need to restrict it down to the data model spec. We’ve talked about both data model and syntax, but we may have to fiddle with the word “syntax".
… We have a logical data model and representations in different languages (JSON, JSON-LD, WebIDL). These are all different languages in which the data model may be specified.
Shane McCarron: As a model
… The plan is to create such a document, and use as example representations, some examples from the Web Payment groups that do something similar.
Manu Sporny: I wanted to mention that this spec… W3C told us to _not_ provide a spec, because it could be a distraction. However, from the responses, we’ve learned that a number of large members need to see a spec.
… Shane mention that this is a “Goldilocks spec” to try to drive the middle ground.
… We believe this is part of the package the W3C Membership expects and will help stave-off objections.
Dan Burnett: Web payments core messages spec:
… Thanks to Dan to step up and create the doc.
… Once we have it, we’ll need to be sure it’s aligned with our work over the last 2 years. We need to be sure we have teh orgs that will implement and deploy say it’s going in the right direction.
Dan Burnett: Expect to do this in the next 2 weeks.
Shane McCarron: Exactly
… Shane’s already dumped in sections from other specs that may be useful.

Topic: One page W3C AC Rep Summary

Manu Sporny: Feedback was that we overloaded them with infrormation in the Use Cases.
… people have asked for a 1-page doc with specific things. We discussed in the WPIG about the suggested content needed to sign off, and we think this is one of those pieces.
… Shane, dlongley, and myself are on the hook to do this.
Eric Korb: Korb to help
Shane McCarron: Or help with the FAQ?? We should get this done in the next two weeks IMHO
… Timeframe is ASAP, we’re blocking the process right now.
… The other issue is that we’re all overloaded right now, but based on workload, that will be pretty hard.
Shane McCarron: I have not - but I am not sure how valuable a spec-ops opinion on this is.
… About 7 people from the IG have filled out the form, the rest are education, healthcare and other things not related to the IG needs.

Topic: Charter Cleanup

Manu Sporny: We’re waiting on questionaire feedback, but people haven’t complained on the charter. Mostly, it’s been the need for simpler language, make it clear that it’s not required to be implemented in the browser, and that we’re starting off with a spec of some kind.
… We’ve had two strong disagreements over charter and that we’re duplicating work in ISO or IETF.

Topic: Use Case Reviews

Shane McCarron: Steven has one review in...
Manu Sporny: Those are the complete use cases, the second is the abbreviated set.
Manu Sporny: Main review we need is to be sure use cases align with the charter.
… Send an email in to credentials or VCTF mailing lists and copy text you want to comment on.
… We’ll try to wrap up the questionare next week. Please fill it out if you haven’t yet.