The Verifiable Claims Task Force

A Task Force of the Web Payments Interest Group

Verifiable Claims Telecon

Minutes for 2016-12-20

Matt Stone is scribing.

Topic: Introduction to Pari, from Intuit

Pari Lingampally: I'm an engineer from Intuit. We are currently working on a project w/ blockchains and identity. mostly here to listen and learn.

Topic: Agenda Review

Dan Burnett: Any changes to the Agenda?
No changes requested.

Topic: Verifiable Claims WG Vote

Manu Sporny: Above threshold and have some positive votes. need some larger companies to weigh in,
Richard Varn: When does the vote close?
Manu Sporny: W3C Member-only vote link for Verifiable Claims:
Manu Sporny: Most of the responders are smaller companies, but work has generated some new w3c members.
Manu Sporny: Looks good so far
Manu Sporny: Need to respond to MSFT and Mozilla on the AC Forum
Manu Sporny: Of the 4 that initially pushed back, 2 have declared they won't block. working w/ the other 2

Topic: Discussion on Github

Manu Sporny: Github issue tracker for spec:
Dan Burnett: Chairs would like the group to have discussions on GitHub and make sure time in our weekly calls is used for topics that require live discussion or decision
Dan Burnett: Review and comment on issues that are logged at GitHub
Dan Burnett: Will use call to discuss issues that seem to be "stuck"
Dan Burnett: Will drive to have proposals to review in the call, so we have a clear decision to debate.
Nate Otto: This GitHub repo looks good.
Manu Sporny: Pari - this group is about to become a w3c member group. feel free to participate via issue tracker
Manu Sporny: Would love to have Intuit's input and collaboration
Jonathan Holt: Yes, Intuit is a member
Jonathan Holt: What's the process to consolidate and prioritize
Dan Burnett: As w3c we must attempt to address every issue. must be careful w/ consolidation so we don't miss any issues
Dan Burnett: Prioritization is based on getting discussion. editorial issue will start getting addressed naturally
Jonathan Holt: Seems like several that overlap and need discussion
Dan Burnett: We will be careful about combining issues as "duplicates"
Pari Lingampally: Thanks for the link manu, I will forward this to the appropriate people and make progress on our vote.Btw just looked, Intuit is a W3C member.
Matt Stone: We're adding a more coarse-grained prioritization. We may add another tag called "requires discussion", to make sure those items are discussed on these calls. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Matt Stone: We're not looking for ordinal prioritization, more coarse grained stuff. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]

Topic: Intro to Github Pull Requests

Dan Burnett: Do we need to have this discussion today?
Dan Burnett: Anyone who would particularly like me to walk through this process?
Manu Sporny: Some may be shy?
Dan Burnett: Anyone who doesn't want us to go through it
Dan Burnett: We have several participants that aren't developers. we'll go quickly if there are no questions
Nate Otto: I understand pull requests in GitHub. We've implemented this procedure for Open Badges and have a small amount of participation via pull request. We've even had a couple non-developers level up and learn how to use PRs.
Matt Stone: Stop scribing the "how to use gitHub" presentation
Manu Sporny: Maybe too deep. go fast :)
Manu Sporny: 3 Ways to be heard - 1) fork/edit/PR in gitHub or 2) comment on issues directly 3) send an email.
Manu Sporny: Option 2 is the simplest and best if you don't wan to be an editor
John Tibbetts: Regarding issues v. pull requests. I've been using issues until have better understanding of the group consensus? if an issue become concrete, will it be bounced back to " us" to make a PR?
Dan Burnett: Depends...
Dave Longley: You can always submit a PR on your own and say it's a proposal for people to take a look at
Dan Burnett: If there's clear concrete agreement, chairs may ask you to make a PR, if you don't know how or resist, chairs will find a way
Dave Longley: It doesn't mean the group will accept it, it's a conversation starter
Dan Burnett: Chairs may ask editors to make a change and ask for comments from the group

Topic: Use of WebIDL in the Spec

Manu Sporny: WebIDL is used in specifications. VC datamodel is syntax agnostic. we're trying to decide what syntax to put in the core spec
Manu Sporny: Consensus we'll include JSON, JSON-LD (probably),
Manu Sporny: Do we need others? like XML, WebIDL, etc. or put them in another document?
Dan Burnett: Asks why this one to go to a separate doc?
Manu Sporny: WebIDL will come in at some point - when it's integrated into the browsers. in the meantime, it's an odd expression to those who aren't browser vendors
Manu Sporny: Include expressions that are more accessible and common for these participants
Manu Sporny: Move webIDL out until we come a real working group
Nathan George: +1 On separate document. I agree with manu's point that his is overly browser-specific, and we should address it later if we can.
Jonathan Holt: Had to rejoin, got kicked off.
Dave Longley: We've prohibited ourselves from doing browser specification of this work
Derek Callaway: Occasionally some application servers will use IDL for CORBA IOR (Inter-Object Request) brokers or Java RMI (Remote Method Invocation) .. no doubt it's a bit obscure, but not unheard of in enterprise-class software
Shane McCarron: Also hard to express this in webIDL, since it's a w3c recommendation, we should try, but we can do it in another doc
Dan Burnett: Generally agree w/ discussion. goal: generally define a datamodel, and show that it can be expressed in >1 manner. we do ourselves a disservice if we don't do it in more than 1
John Tibbetts: Disagree: we should do it one way and it should be JSON-LD
Derek Callaway: You could write a WebIDL->YAML translator (or whatever syntax description language you want)
John Tibbetts: In the core specification - move the alternatives to separate documents w/ many difference representations
Matt Stone: +1 JohnTib
Dave Longley: +1 To John's suggestion of a separate doc with many different representations as examples
Dan Burnett: Please continue the discussion in the issue on gitHub
Shane McCarron: I think it would be worth our while to help fix WebIDL so you can express things like these data structures