Meeting minutes
GitHub Invitation Issues
Ingo_Wolf: Hello Ivan.
Ivan_Herman: Hello Ingo,…
Ivan_Herman: have you received this invite?
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, everything worked out quite well. I received it just once So it was intended I guess.
Ivan_Herman: But why? wait. Let me check something because not this one, but this one.
Ivan_Herman: You are still not in the W3C system. what you received is the one I sent you because I put you manually to the necessary teams. But you should have received the same thing from the W3C system.
Ingo_Wolf: Mhm.
Ingo_Wolf: So, I got on May 4th a Welcome to the W3C verified credentials working group.
Ivan_Herman: No, but that's not what I meant.
<Fireflies.ai_Notetaker_Miguel> Miguel Ángel invited Fireflies.ai here to record & take notes. By continuing, you agree to Privacy Policy | Fireflies.ai
Ingo_Wolf: I have a look in my spam.
Ivan_Herman: There is an invitation somewhere in your spam box probably.
Ivan_Herman: from the W3C system which invites you to join the GitHub W3C organization I think is the code name. Both you and Ronald should have received this and you have to accept this. And Carson has still not done anything about his GitHub credentials. So he's Yeah.
Ingo_Wolf: He should add it to his W3C account. What? Yeah, I'm not seeing this email you mentioned,…
Ingo_Wolf: even not in my spam folder.
Ronald_Koenig: Yeah, when I have accepted one I have also b yeah yeah one and…
Ivan_Herman: That's fine.
Ronald_Koenig: I have also bind my GitHub account to my WC account …
Ingo_Wolf: me neither. Ronald Koenig:
Ronald_Koenig: but I haven't seen any second in the …
Ivan_Herman: So, you haven't seen any additional invites? god.
Ronald_Koenig: I have only seen one but not another one. But you mentioned in your email, I was really looking through my emails but didn't see anything from a GitHub admin or something like that. But as soon as I see it, I will accept it.
Ivan_Herman: No, I don't doubt that but
Ivan_Herman: something like that. Yes.
Ivo_Ladenius: The second email that they should have is that the one that you've been added to the WC group 167 62 7 December members.
Ingo_Wolf: What?
Ivo_Ladenius: Yeah. I'll put it in the chat how it looks like so they can look at it.
Phil_Archer: Back in the old days, this was actually quite complicated.
Ingo_Wolf: The first link I get a 404
Phil_Archer: Now it's easier.
Rigo_Wenning: You don't want to start, right?
Ivo_Ladenius: Yeah, at the first link you get the 44.
<Ivo_Ladenius> "Vivien Lacourba" added you to the "World Wide Web Consortium" team "w3c-group-176277-members"
Ivo_Ladenius: I don't think you are. No, you are not a member because I already looked.
Ivan_Herman: So I have sent an email to the system that none of you have received this thing.
Ivan_Herman: Maybe he will generate a new one. As you say, it's too complicated. But
Phil_Archer: Hopefully I guess either Eno or…
Rigo_Wenning: I Look.
Phil_Archer: Ronald, you're running the meeting, I think in the absence of both Constant and Carolyn.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, Ken will join a little bit later.
Requirements And Use Case Presentation
Ingo_Wolf: He wrote me just before and Caroline mentioned that she won't be available today, right? Yeah. So what I can present is basically the initial collection of requirements and use cases. This time already on the GitHub repository. So not a local preview anymore. Maybe I can share the link again here. so I also picked up the remark from Carolene last time.
Ingo_Wolf: she mentioned that she wanted to see u vocabulary requirements explicitly.
Ingo_Wolf: So yeah I introduced another section that is about requirements for vocabularies some are topic oriented others are governance requirements.
Ivan_Herman: What's up?
<Ingo_Wolf> Vocabulary use cases and requirements
Ingo_Wolf: So yeah, that's the initial set we came up with. I hope you had the chance to look at it right now. So I'm happy to receive feedback on it.
Ivan_Herman: I have just put in an issue on essentially that part just being about an hour ago.
Ingo_Wolf: just being about. Sorry. Say again.
Ivan_Herman: An hour ago.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah. this editor pull requests.
Ivan_Herman: No, no, no. Another one.
Ingo_Wolf: No, an issue.
Ivan_Herman: An issue. Not a PR.
Ingo_Wolf: I didn't see so far but we can have a look at it.
Rigo_Wenning: Maybe share your screen so we have a common understanding.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah So now I should see it.
Ingo_Wolf: Would you like to present about it?
Phillip Long: Oops.
Ivan_Herman: Yeah. So my main goal…
Harmonizing With Working Group Efforts
Ivan_Herman: if you like is that this should be harmonized with what the working group is doing in general. so we should do that as soon as possible. Now the third section of the whole document and I didn't read the whole thing because it's really huge.
Ivan_Herman: So I just scanned the structure and read some parts of it. But almost all what's in section three is…
Ingo_Wolf: Oops.
Ivan_Herman: What you expect from verify your credentials. so for me the whole thing reads like a UCR for verifiable credentials which is a great thing to have. So don't take me wrong but this should not be for this task force only and so I am not sure how to handle that. I would leave that to Phil and Brent maybe have a separate section session at the face meeting where this is presented etc.
Ivan_Herman: But the minimum thing we have to do is to see whether the requirement that you have are covered or not by If not then we may have a problem and that should be taken up early on. So that's my major thing. and then looking at the vocabularies there were these two things you have the section on vocabulary issues about expressing crypto keys and whatnot. that again it should not be in this task force and it should not be in the vocabulary for this task force or vocabularies of this task force.
Ivan_Herman: It should be checked against what's already been done in the Dispack in the several crypto suites and also we have a uantum safe crypto suite coming our way within a day within a few days maximally a few weeks because it still has to undergo some administration in the CCG but that will come as well and So there again you have some requirements on crypto are they covered by what we have if not what should we do about it etc.
Ivan_Herman: And the last thing the comparatively much more minor you talk about multilingual support which is obviously necessary but if that is not covered by JSON then we have a real big problem.
Ivan_Herman: I believe that they are covered by JSON. So that should not even be mentioned here because it should not be an issue for these vocabularies. There might be some other similar things. These are the ones that sort of caught my eye.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, thank you very much. I fully agree. I mean the requirements heavily probably overlap with what you already support with data integrity spec and… Ingo Wolf:
Ingo_Wolf: we could sort them out so to say since they are addressed on a different place.
Ivan_Herman: We should check and…
Ivan_Herman: go because that might not be fully covered. Then we have a bug that we have to forward back to those…
Ivan_Herman: who deal with it.
Ingo_Wolf: Right. Yes. Please.
Phil_Archer: So yes,…
Phil_Archer: I don't know if you've actually seen the group's main use case document which is there in the chat. so I'm trying to lower my hand. I do that here, don't I? Sorry, I was doing the wrong thing. and also just as a bit of background Joe Andrew his entire company is about writing requirements. that's kind of what he does is to formalize his requirements. That's his particular skill set. and so yes, if there are new use cases for VCs, then that's an issue we might need to look at.
<Phil_Archer> Verifiable Credentials Use Cases
Phil_Archer: I think it would be interesting to see whether the use cases you've got because you have a lot which is great again this is a positive thing if those use cases actually affect other task forces as well. So I agree with Ivan that this is actually a groupwide issue looking at the way that Joe and Kevin wrote the VC use cases document and the way that's done and just a moment there. So, it's still so sad to see Greg Kellogg's name there. he died last year, way too young. and there's kind of a structure to that use case document. I work with Joe some years earlier than that on the did use case document.
Phil_Archer: The reason I point to that one is not because I want you to see what I've done in terms of the content. But what that did use case document did which wasn't particularly hard to do was it actually under every use case it listed the requirements that came from that use case and then This is all automated. Those use cases those requirements are then tabulated further down. So if what your document and the work you've done creates new requirements for the business wallet vocabulary, that's where this task force is focused. If you have new use cases that may be addressed by other task forces,…
Phil_Archer: including the data integrity one, great. Let's share those with the group and see how things go. And then optionally if you want to add some smarts to tabulate stuff then great
Ingo_Wolf: Okay, thank you.
<Phil_Archer> Use Cases and Requirements for Decentralized Identifiers
Ingo_Wolf: Rio, please.
Rigo_Wenning: Yeah, which then turns the thing around Phil by saying hey which of the elements and use cases do we reuse for the business vocabulary so that we have already things implemented, we have already things tested because they have been in those other use case documents and we don't invent a new element but we take an existing element. but I think this is a second step. if I remember last time we first of all wanted to have a stable document. I agree with everything I said.
Rigo_Wenning: And this is really a typical danger in informatics that it's much easier to just start blank sheet and make our own document and work on our own document instead of drawing in all those other things. But first of all I think I just scrolled over it. it's a good starting point. but now we need to slowly start cleaning it up and that has two aspects the one that Ivan mentioned but also and that's the aspect I wanted to contribute is that we may want to reuse elements from existing Work.
Ingo_Wolf: Yes, Ivan, please.
Ivan_Herman: I want to be fair to Ingo part of it has been done. If you look at the requirements and the vocabularies, then he began to list all the existing vocabularies that cover at least part of those. And from a vocabulary reconstruction point of view, this means that we have to have references to those vocabularies and not reinvent the terms.
Ivan_Herman: I think that has already been started and I was happy to see that. Whether all the references are exact and correct, I don't know because they are in areas that I may not know.
Ivan_Herman: But yeah,
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, I fully support that view. also from your side, Rio, I would be happy if you contribute especially with this existing ontologies that we can refer to since probably many in the group have more experience and…
Ingo_Wolf: oversight on what is already there to be referenced. I'm happy to, get contributions on how we clean up this, so to Ivan, yes.
Ivan_Herman: Yeah, there was one more thing that caught my eye,…
Reference To C2PA Specification
Ivan_Herman: but How do I it down? it's your reference to C2PA.
Ivan_Herman: So I don't know all the details of C2PA but C2PA specification has some explicit reference to VC saying that it can in include ocabularies VC structures into C2PA that means we don't have anything to say about that that's up to the C2PA I would do it specification itself we don't have a real influence we have some contacts there so that's not a problem if we need to have a discussion we have Rosento…
Ingo_Wolf: Okay. Yeah.
Ivan_Herman: who can come to any of our call if we need him but we don't have to explicitly refer to C2PA in our documents I
Rigo_Wenning: Ivan referring to the document. I think it belongs into some guidelines, some FAQ or something else because I would really see that in the use case document. it may fool us into referencing in later specification work. But if you look at the industry that we target they need explanations because we are not only creating new technology, we are creating with this DPP thing, we are creating new digitization avenues and really new ways of exchanging information and
Rigo_Wenning: in securing those exchanges and there sometimes you need more of an explanation than you would normally do in a technical specification. That's just a little concern by
Ivan_Herman: Okay.
Phil_Archer: All of…
Phil_Archer: which sounds like a pylon and go. I'm sorry. No, this is really positive. You got all this content which reminds me Rio legal clearance to do this still not written down somewhere I know it's
Rigo_Wenning: Unfortunately, I have several things and…
Ivan_Herman: I'm going
Rigo_Wenning: several hats and one of them has a firefighting function and unfortunately the sirens were on. So, I'm really sorry I haven't progressed there.
Phil_Archer: Yeah, I'm not criticizing, I'm not criticizing.
Rigo_Wenning: But I have it on my
Phil_Archer: Thank you. It's appreciated.
Phil_Archer: So, all Sorry. Thank you. You're in charge, not me. I stop.
Ingo_Wolf: Hello. It's good.
Ingo_Wolf: Thanks for the feedback. yeah. So, I was hoping to have from the DPP side the vocabulary experts to step into the discussion a bit more actively but so far yeah it didn't happen.
Ingo_Wolf: I hope that we will work on this use cases together the way you just mentioned addressing this other fields that take care already for parts of the requirements described here. removing some references like C2PA that you just mentioned. I noted that down. Of course, I can edit the document to reflect those changes. But I think what we would like to achieve is also the alignment of the DPP vocabularies that exist already.
Ingo_Wolf: And one example that we brought on the table was this battery DPP. that could work as an example on how we intend to derive a profile. I think this was the discussion we had last time, From the specification that we intend to be rather an umbrella for all vocabularies.
Ingo_Wolf: So that would be at least from our point of view a good exercise to get closer to our goals that we defined right but with this I hope that TPP experts step in and provide some guidance maybe also legal you're
Ivan_Herman: Yeah,
Rigo_Wenning: Didn't Susanna Golovski said she wanted to join the group and the work here because she's the ultimate expert on whatever is in batteries.
Rigo_Wenning: Yes.
Phil_Archer: Yeah, she's in the group and…
Phil_Archer: in the task force. Yeah, she's just here right now.
Prioritized Legislative Areas For DPP
Rigo_Wenning: So, you need to poke her because that's your ultimate expert. and knowing Susanna, it takes mountains to hold her off. and probably, then evaluation by Cowolin. so that would be a good pathway. and then there is the other one that is pretty okay so we have three things that are urgent for and where there is a lot of push because of the legislative situation that they have to start implementing in 2027 is electronics and fashion.
Ingo_Wolf: Thank God.
Rigo_Wenning: profession. we have an ontology that is proprietary that is from Andrea Schneider that Phil knows But the ontology is really nicely done and I turned Andreas into a G10 lover which is very amusing to and the other one is electronics is especially complicated because the electronics industry is in this data dictionary thing that makes JTC 24 so complicated. but I think from a perspective I would target those three as the first ones for the business wallet because I think the political game around the business wallet will play out in those three areas.
Rigo_Wenning: Yes. Okay.
Ingo_Wolf: Sorry Ro your audio was quite disrupted at least on my side.
Ingo_Wolf: Could you repeat the three points that you summarized now? Yes.
Rigo_Wenning: Summarizing the actual legislation. Am I audible now? I need to tell my daughter not to download any Linux kernel when I'm in teleconferences. okay and two gigabit should be enough but sometimes isn't. so the legislation has prioritized three areas for DPP implementation and because of this prioritization we see more pressure to develop vocabularies and systems to respond to that legislative need.
Ivan_Herman: Listen.
Rigo_Wenning: Those three areas are battery which is the first and the most urgent one because it's really nearby. The second one is fashion and the third one is electronics because electronic waste is really starting to be a problem let alone AI data centers and I think we need to play our business wallet against those three areas too because the functionality of the business wallet
Rigo_Wenning: will be tested against those areas also in a combination with DPP and business wallet because then how does a recycler get information you need those business wallet exchange and trust lines and all of that so that's why I think when we talk about vocabulary is this kind of what is common… but then perhaps Make those three vocabulary profiles, to demonstrate how it works. Rigo Wenning:
Phil_Archer: Evo,…
Phil_Archer: I don't know whether you can help out with your role in Serbas, Caroline's project. the textile one which is being developed, I know. batteries. Yeah, that's Susanna's electronics. I'm pretty sure doesn't have much to say about that.
Ivo_Ladenius: No. Yeah. textile but we first are building and the core ontology is for multiple sectors. so then when that's finished we are building the textile on top of that and electronics is waiting for textile to see…
Ingo_Wolf: Is this core ontology work that you mentioned Evo maybe the starting point for the DPP vocabulary? Ivo Ladenius:
Ivo_Ladenius: how we are building textile and electronics go almost hand in hand and it's on the cabin.
Ivan_Herman: I'm sorry.
Ivo_Ladenius: So that should be the link there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Could be. Yeah. I'm not sure. I know one of my colleagues is working on that partly. but I think it's under Caroline the internal people that are working on it right now. and also another company. I don't know who that is anymore. but I know we wanted to hire GraphWise. but they didn't get a contract. So I think Caroline solved it by using the home people.
Ivo_Ladenius: Yeah.
Phil_Archer: Yeah, she's got a team of people.
Phil_Archer: Which includes ontologists. Yeah. So,…
Ingo_Wolf: All right.
Phil_Archer: what do you need people to do and so on?
Ingo_Wolf: We have this vocabulary for batteries in a draft version 0.2 based on RDF schema and…
Ingo_Wolf: yeah we have an example JSON LD context and vocabulary defined for that.
Ingo_Wolf: So I would really like to see the exercise aiming for a profile for batteries and we could take the intended result as our example and look at the core ontology that Evo mentioned and step by step compare how such a profiling could be done could He approached right? What do you think?
Rigo_Wenning: Yeah I think as a first filter there are two things. first one is when Phil Archer reminded me of my role is that please if you make available that vocabulary then tell me about who's has written it and I will tell you what rights I need to continue working on it.
Rigo_Wenning: That's the And the second one would be to just play it by Susanna and look for comments. that would be a really nice first filter. and as a design goal I would say auntie Shadok keep it as simple as we can as long as we can.
Rigo_Wenning: Complication will be done by the consultants thereafter.
Ingo_Wolf: All right.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, that's definitely a thing I can do to gather the feedback from Susanna on this battery DPP that we provided. And yeah, I think concerning the intellectual property things, you mentioned Rigo Carson will be the person in charge concerning sperity.
Ingo_Wolf: So we decide on that would be next steps I can derive from this conversation right now.
Phil_Archer: So you just rolling back a little bit while we're talking about the use cases that you've put together which is again a very positive thing. the next call that Ivan and I have and Brent we're going to be working I think unless Brent corrects me on the agenda for the face to face…
Ivan_Herman: F***.
Phil_Archer: which is coming up now very soon. So should we make a slot there for you to present this and I think talk about the use cases you've got and how it does or doesn't fit in with what we've got already and how we're going to work on that. the one we're having in 3 weeks time in Brussels.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, we can aim for that. when do you think such a face-toface meeting would be possible? There is Ken already confirmed as a participant. Is it right?
Phil_Archer: Yes, he's coming. Yes. Would he be there as well?
<Ivo_Ladenius> Semantic Treehouse
Ingo_Wolf: I did not yet plan for but maybe it's possible. Yeah.
Phil_Archer: I'm getting strong signals requirements, demands from my office manager that we need to know who's coming by the end of this week. She and I both away next week for different reasons. so this is why I'm setting a deadline of the group call on Wednesday to know who's coming. So if you can come, great. Please add your name accordingly to the spreadsheet there. remote participation is perfectly possible. and Carson did put his name in today. and so did Monica from Bundesan Ziga Balak.
Phil_Archer: Which is good. but we do need to get that list finalized for the agenda. Brent and I will be working on that I hope very shortly.
Ingo_Wolf: Right. If possible to join remotely,…
Ingo_Wolf: I would say I will join in any case. so remotely is every time possible.
Phil_Archer: Okay. Yeah.
<Phil_Archer> VCWG Brussels F2F 2026 Attendees - Google Sheets
Ingo_Wolf: And I will decide during the week if I travel there not. But since Carson is already there, it might be that I only join remotely. But I can present this remote as well. Yeah.
Phil_Archer: So, we'll set aside a chunk of time to talk about use cases in general with your document as a starting point obviously and…
Phil_Archer: the one that's already published and see what we need to do as a group to go from there. that was another question I was going to ask you all before we finish.
Ivo_Ladenius: Did we also had a task force meeting on Monday there?
Ivo_Ladenius: I believe we did.
Phil_Archer: So yes what we have done is to set aside one of the meeting rooms on Monday afternoon that is the day before the main meeting starts but Caroline ended up being quite adamant that she wanted to cancel it. Now Caroline takes care of the DPP side of things rather than the business wallet side of things.
Phil_Archer: I think if the people who are here now talking about business wallets wanted to meet that afternoon you could but I'm pretty but I know Caroline won't be there and so I've kind of canceled it already…
Phil_Archer: but if you want to reinstate it so then I will be at the office that Monday afternoon anyway because that's when my train gets in but that's kind of by the barcode and data integrity group is meeting that Yeah,…
Ivo_Ladenius: All right.
Ivo_Ladenius: Yeah, I will be also there. But maybe Ingo or someone else could you ask it next Monday? who's also going to join Susano or something? because I'm on holiday from the end of this week.
Phil_Archer: me too. That's why everything's in a rush. Got to get it done this week.
Ingo_Wolf: …
Ingo_Wolf: you're asking that I inform Susanna to join this Monday afternoon meeting as well,…
Ingo_Wolf: or I didn't really get it. Okay.
Ivo_Ladenius: Yeah, if she wants to have a task force meeting there also so we can talk about DPP or…
Phil_Archer: No. Yeah,… Ivo Ladenius:
Ivo_Ladenius: business wallet. and…
Phil_Archer: Stupidly I deleted the people…
Ivo_Ladenius: the next steps what we need to do there.
Phil_Archer: who put their name in for that meeting. which I shouldn't have done until after we had this call. But I think yeah cuz the only people listed on the attendance sheet for that Monday afternoon were Carolyn and…
Phil_Archer: Chagaya and…
Phil_Archer: Carolyn said no. So currently the only person I've got coming on that Monday afternoon is Chagaya. So unless this group decides very quickly that they want to meet that Monday afternoon, it's not going to happen. Thanks. …
Ivo_Ladenius: I am available at least for that Monday afternoon.
Ingo_Wolf: I could probably join remotely.
Ingo_Wolf: If possible Mhm.
Phil_Archer: yeah. I mean, all our meeting rooms have, that facility, of course. but, at the moment, that meeting isn't happening unless there's a strong push to make it But I do think again I'm conscious that Brent is here but we'll set aside some time to talk about use cases and how the new task forces and the new work we're taking on affects the use case document how we might put the thing together. Is it a use case document just for the business wallet vocabulary in which case that's one thing or actually should it be merged into the other one and how would that work and I think that's going to be and again as Ivan said I think that will also apply to other task forces as well.
Phil_Archer: So, we will set aside time for that. Don't know which one yet. We haven't decided, but there will be time in the 2 and a half days we've got. Anything else?
Ingo_Wolf: All right.
Phil_Archer: If not, Brent Bone and I might get to meet a bit earlier than usual.
Ingo_Wolf: Oops. Yeah,…
Phil_Archer: And going to show you
Ivan_Herman: Sorry, I do have one question.
Ingo_Wolf: I think so. We are through for today. So, thank you very much for the feedback first of all.
Business Wallet vs. DPP Vocabulary
Ronald_Koenig: Maybe if we still have time because we are discussing a lot of DPPS and on the other side they say European business wallet vocabulary or business wallet vocabulary because business wallet vocabulary and DPP are from my point of view two different topics. Yes, we host DPSPs in the business wallet but we are not really counting it the DPP vocabulary as something completely separate.
Ronald_Koenig: to the business wallet vocabulary because the business wallet vocabulary is focusing on the identity of businesses of business identities which are delivered by the business registers into the wallet so that they can based on this business identity issue digital product passports or doing completely other things like KYS data space on boarding So what I wanted to see just here is that we have two different work streams on this one. One is going into the DPP and modeling the UDP in the different areas and the other one is how we manage business identity inside the business wallet.
Ronald_Koenig: at least in Europe if we are talking about business wallet just to make this sure then you mostly discussing about the identities of the legal person as well as the natural person acting on behalf of legal person and how we manage this one in wallets so that a company or a person which is acting on behalf of a company can prove its identity to the business partner and Then using this identity, for example, issuing a DPP or acting as a manufacturer or…
Ronald_Koenig: economic operator or something like that in the context of a dip product passport.
Ingo_Wolf: Thank you,…
Ingo_Wolf: Ronard, for clarification. Brandt has a remark on that, I guess.
<Brent_Zundel> European Commission seeks participants for European Business Wallet Technical Work Sub-Group | Shaping Europe’s digital future
Brent_Zundel: Not on that actually I dropped a link into the chat for the meeting about the creating a technical working subgroup for business wallets. my question is how does that work relate to the work that this task force is doing? How will those things interre interact and be involved with one another as that technical group is created and…
Brent_Zundel: and moves forward? Is there any sort of formal relationship that needs to be created or I'm just curious how those things relate to one another?
Ronald_Koenig: I can little bit explain about this request.
Ronald_Koenig: let me say this request from the European Commission to create the expert group which is discussing the architecture of the European business wallet. it's a new activity because you maybe already know that we had this regulation which was defining the oil ballet but the wallet is mainly concerned about natural person not really legal person. The intention was that it is scoping that it scopes the legal person as well as a natural wallet. The outcome was with the architectural reference framework that we currently have that is mainly focusing on natural person wallet and is mainly ignoring the special requirements for the business wallet.
Ronald_Koenig: And therefore currently the European Commission is asking for experts which are working on the architecture for European business wallets let me say to cover also the requirements which are very specific to European for the poss let me say the background of this request and how it works
Ronald_Koenig: is that really at 30 and also the bundes anaiger we will ask to send the expert into this group so that we can make sure that the business wallet is developing into the direction we want to have…
Ingo_Wolf: 21st of May is the deadline for applications, right?
Ronald_Koenig: but we cannot say anything about it because the selection process is not yet started. It will start in I think end of May. and the way it really relates to the work in this group. I think this is what we have to figure out as soon as the scope will constitutes so that we can then look how we can have a connection between it but on the other hand we will have some representatives in this group hopefully so that we will make sure that the work we are doing here with respect to the business vocabulary is aligned with the work we are currently doing
Ronald_Koenig: with the European business wallet. So that we hopefully have only one vocabulary because our understanding is that the business vocabulary or the identities which we are currently defining in Europe should not be limited in the scope that it is representing Europe companies because business is international business. Therefore, we also take account for example for the legal entity identifier which is the additional identifier and also for all for some other identifiers which are in its nature really legal identifier…
Ingo_Wolf: Filth, please.
Ronald_Koenig: which can be used for international businesses.
Phil_Archer: changing hats for a minute.
Phil_Archer: It's my GS1 hat. there are discussions going on here about how we're going to respond to this and it seems quite likely that they're going to put me forward to be in that group. but that's not yet determined. because this is being recorded in public, I'm going to be careful what I say no, seriously, I got to be careful what I say. I was with somebody from the commission last week at an event that we had and he was talking about somebody called Jose Manuel and I thought I knew exactly who that was and it turns out I got that wrong.
Phil_Archer: I tried another Jose Manuel I know and I just got a message from him saying that it's not me either. so if you know someone called Jose Manuel who's involved in this who is not Jose Manuel Caner Fesca or…
Ivan_Herman: Py would have been nice.
Phil_Archer: Jose Manuel Alonso I'd love to know which Jose Manuel it is. and Jose might just messaged me and saying maybe. So I'm not sure. but I do think it's possible that I'll end up being on that group on behalf of GS1. but then you see it gets confusing because the reason they want me is not because of GS1. It's because of this group. So, I'm constantly wearing the two hats.
Ingo_Wolf: Ring up, please.
Ronald_Koenig: Okay, that's…
Ronald_Koenig: then very nice to because then the chances are high that we will meet in this group.
Phil_Archer: Okay, sounds good. R
Rigo_Wenning: Yeah,…
Rigo_Wenning: one of the reasons we were pushing for this group was to have an institutional where we can coordinate feedback to those expert groups. note that Brent this is in the larger context of this whole political game between the SDJ.vc playing JSON people and the link data people.
Rigo_Wenning: So it's really like a because when I was in Paris at the global digital coalition blah blah blah first of all the fun part was they said link data is evil and then they discussed for 45 minutes that they have a variety problem that they can't solve. yes this was I had hard times. and in that context someone from the commission because we are publicly reported recorded said to me look the ODI is lost because they want to have the simple simplicit simple show my driver license to the police with my mobile phone thingy which the very simple thing
Rigo_Wenning: but as soon as you have more complex things in the enterprise, but also in education and other it doesn't work anymore. so the next one is are we only doing identification of legal persons? And I can tell you that at least in the European context we have all those what do you say commercial register regist the commerce and all of that they are sophisticated they were created in 1900 in the first world war to determine that you're not cooperating with the enemy or whether you are the enemy or not and so on. So they are very sophisticated.
Rigo_Wenning: we don't have to replace them. But what we can actually do here with the business wallet and the DPP and so on is to combine new semantics into that by saying look he has the right to present that to the customs. dear things you can augment suddenly all the logistics paper trail that Steve Capel is working on enormously. and that's attached to identity spa plays a very important role. But I think our role here is to make the things combinable so that we are not kind of just limited to some hey here is my kabies my myria or whatever you want to say here it is and that's it.
Rigo_Wenning: But that's what the others do and the commission kind of started to realize that…
Rigo_Wenning: if they do it this simple way nothing will advance. we just change paper by PDF which is useless and
Ronald_Koenig: Yeah, it's not so badly ego…
Ronald_Koenig: if I can but welcome in my world because the problem what we have in Europe is we have at least in the regulation there are three formats for verifiable credentials. One is the M do format and we should not discuss about this one because we already ruled it out for organizational identities because it is just for proximity use cases for driver license and such stuff and not really unfortunately the other one is SD.VC BC as you have said this is based on JSON and a very proprietary let me say it way of doing selective disclosure.
Ronald_Koenig: this SD extension what we have in the SD and you already know it because we have also ECDS SD inside the crypto suite which we have as a W3 with a link data pros right anyway but the third format is a W3C VCDM 2.0 zero format which is by the way listed in the NX2 of the regulation. So that it is in but unfortunately not the preferred format by the credent the natural person wallet providers. because currently all this activities are related to the natural person wallet they have decided to go forward with the bc PC only and we are dropping the W3CBC VCDM credentials. What we did is that we separated the discussion on this one.
Ronald_Koenig: What we are saying is that we are providing ontology and the terminology for business identities with all the facets like the EUCC, the KYC, KYS, power of attorney and all the other things and we are providing this one and we are providing it based on a credential format which is able to carry semantic information and this is for us
Ronald_Koenig: JSON ID. so that means W3C VCBM credentials because SVC doesn't support JSON ID at all. And another thing is we need linkable data because what is the reality is if you look in Germany into a corporation like let me say ID which has a ownership structure…
Ingo_Wolf: Thank you.
Ronald_Koenig: where 500 companies are involved in the overall identity of this company. It is no way to put all this one into one credential. What you need is a linkage between the different credentials. What we easily can provide with JSON ID but we cannot provide using the SDVC format because we don't have any idea how they are doing links between This is a long ongoing discussion and there are a lot of other issues why we are going forward.
Ronald_Koenig: The current situation is that we have not really a request on W3C VCDM credentials because I'm already working for what is it now six seven years using this one starting with vaccination certificates during corona and all this stuff because we have all this functionality the only problem what we currently have is that there's a political decision inside we build that they are preferring SDBC and they are driving this come forward on ignoring more or less W33 VCDM credentials. And this is by the way also the reason I would like to join this expert group because this is one way maybe to influence it to get WC3 Financial accepted as one format inside the European business wallet.
Ingo_Wolf: Okay.
Ronald_Koenig: And from our point of view from sparity we are completely convinced that the right format to do credentials is WC3 credentials for the following reason. The first thing is WC3C allow us to have semantic inside the credential and bind to the credential itself to the data format. The second thing is we can really describe the very complex business identity credentials we have in Germany including inclusively the description of ultimate beneficiary owners, ownerships, legal representatives, power of attorneys and all the other stuffs.
Ronald_Koenig: And for this one we need it and we have a very flexible way of expressing holder binding because we can do it using the ids inside the JSON ID to do so because every ID inside the JSON ID can be did and we can provide order binding. We needed for example for companies where we have 64 legal or more 100 legal representatives for one company and every legal representative needs the opportunity or the capability to prove its identity and its authority to represent this And…
Ingo_Wolf: It's over.
Ronald_Koenig: if you want to do it, you need cryptographically proof of this one. And if you're doing it with JSON ID. is not possible using as we see as it is today and…
Ronald_Koenig: all the things we have to put into this discussion and then Phil I really happy if you joined this group that we can push it forward and I have really written a lot of paper and documents pressing forward for WC3 credentials and getting this on the road but
Phil_Archer: My line on simply that it is wrong to exclude BCDN.
Phil_Archer: It is just as wrong to exclude SD job BC and so can't we all get along and accept both because if you go in and say no my way is the only way you very quickly get shown the door that's never the way to get on with people. so we'll see that and that's what I was saying to this gent from the European Commission the other day and he said yeah that seems obvious to us.
Phil_Archer: I was going to say, yes, the other thing I was going to say because we're running out of time. Ronald, do have a look at the recognized entity task force as well. That's the one where Steve Capel is active and that is…
Phil_Archer: where we are talking about how to link one credential to another to say that the evidence for this comes from that. so I know it's another meeting, it's another task force, but exactly what you were just saying is being discussed there.
Ronald_Koenig: Okay, that sounds very nice.
Ronald_Koenig: And by the way, I also see a lot of other activities inside the WCC which is very beneficial for us starting from the postquantum cryptography which is already a requirement. BBS plus going forward for a real zero knowledge proof selective disclosure…
Ingo_Wolf: Okay.
Ronald_Koenig: because the ECDA SD is fine but has a lot of limitations. If you go to very complex data structure, the signatures are starting really to explode the amount of data they have to store because we cannot go forward with zero knowledge books and there's a lot of things but what we should put in and we already did but unfortunately they are still focusing on very very easy or simple use cases where the data complexity is very very limited and therefore it works and they have
Ronald_Koenig: no urgent need to go forward. But on the other side, we have already put in a lot of use cases which require W33 credential from the beginning on. This is for example data spaces because all the data spaces are using W33 credentials for data credentials like membership credentials, data processing credentials, business partner number credentials and so on. And the same thing is valid for professional education. They have a very big data model already ontology for expressing professional education credentials.
Ronald_Koenig: And the other use case which is supporting us in this discussion are supply chain credentials because the supply chain cred have already ontology which is based on W3 credentials and we are looking forward with them to go into the discussion with respect to pushing W3 credential in this context. Yes, I see.
Ingo_Wolf: All right.
Ingo_Wolf: Thank you very much. Looking at the time, I think we are already one minute over. Ivan, you wanted to say something before?
Ivan_Herman: I think can you stay on for a few minutes like a few in a It's so I looked at this bloody thing again.
Ingo_Wolf: Yes, sure.
Phil_Archer: Okay, thank you.
Ingo_Wolf: for the others. Thank you very much for attending and have a good week and…
Phil_Archer: Yeah, you in over a week's time. Bye-bye.
Ingo_Wolf: you next time. Thank you. Mhm.
Ivo_Ladenius: Tune next time.
Ivan_Herman: That will be put into the minutes as well, but what I see is that the invitation for this should come not from W3C but from GitHub.
Ivan_Herman: And I have seen that there are two pending invitation you and from for Ronald and for Carson as well that were on belf sent out by Gab…
Ivan_Herman: but on behalf of W3C I sort of edited it as if it was renewing the invitation, but I have no idea where it ends up whether it is a GitHub thing or a mail from GitHub or whatever. I just don't know.
Ingo_Wolf: I think I remember that it was like an overlay or…
Ingo_Wolf: a popup when I logged into my GitHub account. I was notified with something on the screen.
Ivan_Herman: And isn't there one now.
Ingo_Wolf: No at the moment I don't see any other. So it was just like one time I accepted this and then it disappeared. Yeah. Let's try again.
Ivan_Herman: If you look at your account only This is a mystery.
Ingo_Wolf: Where I am?
Ivan_Herman: I have no idea what's happening. Okay, I have to go to the other meeting.
Ronald_Koenig: I see it.
Ivan_Herman: Okay.
Ronald_Koenig: What you can do is you can go into your GitHub account. Just a moment. I accept this one.
Ivan_Herman: I have to go guys and you will sort it.
Ingo_Wolf: Thank you,…
Ingo_Wolf: Ivan. Yes.
Ronald_Koenig: But I see it now. If I go into organization, I have not received any email but if I go into invitation in the GitHub account, I see it in organization…
Ingo_Wolf: In organizations. Yeah, I see it now.
Ronald_Koenig: then you will see it There's something you see it from the W3C.
Ingo_Wolf: right. Mhm.
Ronald_Koenig: I can accept this one. Just a moment. GitHub join the world web consortium.
Ingo_Wolf: When I click on it,…
Ingo_Wolf: it says it was expired.
Ronald_Koenig: Then you got yours a little bit later…
Ronald_Koenig: but this zero days but it seems in my case I have it now.
Ronald_Koenig: Yeah, I'm in.
Ingo_Wolf: May not know…
Ingo_Wolf: It disappeared expired.
Ronald_Koenig: It could be if you got your I know organization scheme collaborator on one repository.
Ingo_Wolf: Click this. Outside collaborator on one repository.
Ronald_Koenig: Yeah. Yeah.
Ronald_Koenig: What's the head is then VC DPB V.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah,…
Ronald_Koenig: W3C3.
Ingo_Wolf: I manual. Yeah.
Ronald_Koenig: accept this confine invited you to collate on WCBC DPB. I saw that I union and Vide
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah.
Ingo_Wolf: Outside collaborator member as far as Yeah.
Ronald_Koenig: Member on collaborator on two repositories.
Ronald_Koenig: Then cook up repositories.
Ingo_Wolf: Okay.
Ronald_Koenig: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. ority required. Compare planes.
Ronald_Koenig: Compare planes settings. It's this.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah. Yeah.
Ingo_Wolf: Come on.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, I was cl Yeah.
Ronald_Koenig: the DC repository. Good.
Ronald_Koenig: is merch.
Ingo_Wolf: No, there build oneonone.
Ronald_Koenig: Yeah.
Ingo_Wolf: Oneonone by Daniel Sebastian. scenario for controller API holder is don't know
Ronald_Koenig: Martin. Okay.
Ronald_Koenig: pages as authentic.
Ronald_Koenig: Authentic verify credential. forchech.
Ingo_Wolf: Let's pray,…
Ingo_Wolf: Okay.
Ingo_Wolf: His
Ronald_Koenig: Mi uni management group.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah. for Nope.
Ronald_Koenig: Is it fire?
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, I go to job. Meeting ended after 01:17:16 👋 This editable transcript was computer generated and might contain errors. People can also change the text after it was created.