Meeting minutes
Welcome And Introduction
Ivan_Herman: Hello. Hear you.
Ingo_Wolf: Yes, I can hear you very well.
Ivan_Herman: I was not sure that it is the right time for the meeting because there has been some sort of a mixup but it seems we are fine. Ingo Wolf:
Ingo_Wolf: I think so. I also still had the meeting one hour before in my calendar, but I thought this was obsolete, so I just joined this one now.
Ivan_Herman: Let me see what I have in my calendar.
Ivan_Herman: No, I am fine. My calendar is okay.
Ingo_Wolf: All right.
Ivan_Herman: There is this American saying that ain't broken,…
Ivan_Herman: don't fix it. And I think the meeting timing was typically one of those. we had it, they're rolling, don't touch it.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, I think so.
Ingo_Wolf: Never touch a running system.
Ivan_Herman: Admit two guests. to admit? Why do I have time? Hello.
Ivan_Herman: Why do I have to admit you explicitly suddenly? Me neither. That's the problem. We should probably talk to money because he's the one managing all these Google Meets or…
Carolynn_Bernier: I don't know.
Ivan_Herman: whatever this is.
Recognized Entity Work Discussion
Carolynn_Bernier: I saw that there was a lot of movement in the recognized entity work.
Carolynn_Bernier: They sent around several emails and I don't know if any of these conversations are relevant what we're discussing now. I don't know Ivan or Ingo and Mlay if any of you had a chance to read the extensive technical geeky Yeah,…
Ivan_Herman: I was dealing with other technical things.
Carolynn_Bernier: I understand.
Ingo_Wolf: I focused on the CE marking examples.
Ingo_Wolf: So this is something I can show today…
M.-A._Wolf: I'm saying
Carolynn_Bernier: Do you see them go by it's basically a conversation between Brett Highland…
Ingo_Wolf: but I was not into the discussions you mentioned just right now. Not really
Carolynn_Bernier: who is Australian who's from Niata. So Brett is a great friend. he's the one who's helping me design the ecosystem example for product certification and accreditation and everything that we've been discussing. He's an expert on this accreditation. So Brett is the person who's been helping me design this thing that we've been talking about which is this very complex slide that I showed last time. I'm just going to show you my screen just so you know what I'm talking about. this ecosystem example. I don't know if you can see my screen.
Ivan_Herman: Yeah. Heat.
Carolynn_Bernier: So Brett is the one who talked to me about global ACI and this chain of recognition. And when I sent him this he was think he answered me a mail that I didn't read yet that he said it's more complicated than that basically is what he said. So before we go and complicate things further.
Carolynn_Bernier: So Brett exchanged with Steve and Manu and Brent about some topic related to recognized entities which relates to this what we're talking about because these arrows come from the entity spec each one of these arrows recognizes recognized in and…
Carolynn_Bernier: stuff like that. so somebody needs to read those mails to understand…
Ivan_Herman: those at all.
Carolynn_Bernier: if it affects our work. That's all I'm saying.
Ivan_Herman: I haven't seen those males at all. It doesn't ring.
Carolynn_Bernier: I am going to tell you this.
Ivan_Herman: Which male English was that?
Carolynn_Bernier: Just a second. So this was an email exchange between Phil Archer,…
Ivan_Herman: But you seem to say that it was not on any mailing list.
Carolynn_Bernier: Steve Capel, Manu. That's what I think. And so Qi is quality infrastructure. Whenever you hear about quality infrastructure, this has to do with accreditation. All that stuff about accreditation. This is their little name. So there's the Swiss quality infrastructure is the people. So this Peter, he's in Switzerland here.
Carolynn_Bernier: He's the one who made this site that we discussed. let me just wait. Do I have it in this meeting in the slides? I'm just looking for It must be in my ms emails. Wait, I'm looking for W3C.
Carolynn_Bernier: I don't have enough screens really.
Ivan_Herman: Bingo. You are muted.
Carolynn_Bernier: Ingoing, you sent me a mermaid of the figure, but I didn't know if the figure was clearer with the mermaid and without the mermaid. so we'll discuss that later.
Ingo_Wolf: I tried a different way of visualization. maybe a bit more easy to understand…
Ingo_Wolf: but you will tell me when I present it to you.
Carolynn_Bernier: Okay. Wait.
Carolynn_Bernier: So, this is the nuance that he didn't So, he said there would be more arrows in the diagram. I haven't read it yet. so it's this Peter that created this. Wait a second. I'm looking for the link to Just a second. Peter right. here we go. can you see this screen the quality infrastructure as a trust graph.
Ivan_Herman: Yeah.
Carolynn_Bernier: So what we're talking about is basically a visualization of this quality infrastructure as a trust graph. I'm just going to add that link in my slides so that I have it't edit the slide. I'm a bit handicapped today. Yeah. So, I don't know if you've seen this. I thought I shared this already with you. I'm going to put it in the chat.
Carolynn_Bernier: So Peter and Brett they really defend this approach what we're talking about and they're trying to make it for real because they come from this world, So they're contributing to the recognized entity work with their considerations. So maybe I can forward the mail that wasn't to a work group.
Carolynn_Bernier: I'm going to forward it to the list so the content of this email is going to be a public ticket on the recognized entities So it's already this content is a contribution to the recognized entity issues.
Carolynn_Bernier: For our trusted ecosystem example and I haven't read this yet. It's in my to-do list, to read those mails. But you need calm moments, a bit of time and to sit down. and Phil Archer was part of this conversation. He said, "This is very relevant to our work on recognized entities." And Phil is also interested in…
Ingo_Wolf: Oops.
Carolynn_Bernier: what we're doing on DPP. So, we need take time to think about this. and so maybe what we can do Ingo is you show us what you've prepared. And then maybe if we have nothing else to do, we can at least read those emails.
Carolynn_Bernier: Take 10 minutes to read those emails which are relevant to our work. Go ahead. I'm going to stop sharing.
Ingo_Wolf: All right.
Recognized Entities Example Presentation
Ingo_Wolf: So I took the feedback from last time that I got and…
Carolynn_Bernier: Cool. But This is on a branch.
Ingo_Wolf: prepared this recognized entities example in the style that it could become ecosystem example on the version that I was working on there was also a third example I think it's not published yet the holder base delivery
Ingo_Wolf: But I added this one and…
Carolynn_Bernier: This is your branch or something like that.
Ingo_Wolf: this is my personal branch. just on local host.
Carolynn_Bernier: All right.
Ingo_Wolf: The rendering of respect is just done locally. But I can show you the result or wanted to give the chance for feedback before I push it to a branch that might become merged,…
Carolynn_Bernier: Cool.
Ingo_Wolf: So yeah, the issue here in red explicitly states that there has been no review yet of the working group and also not of the European bodies that are part of this sample. therefore, yeah, take it with some caution.
Ingo_Wolf: But what I did is basically take all the recognized entities from the example and put it in a small animation. smile you might know synchronized multimedia integration language. It's a bit of an older specification but very well embeds into HTML and gets this kind of animation rendered nicely. So what you see here is the view from an issuer point of view. what verifiable credentials to other entities within that ecosystem. and this is shown here. So we have the top branch which is the legal view of all that.
Ingo_Wolf: Example starting at the European Commission as a root of trust who delegates with a certain verifiable credential the national notifying of authority to the member states of the European Union. So this is the initial recognition of notifying authority basically which is on a government level. So that means the European Commission recognizes the governments to have to notify conformity assessment bodies.
Ingo_Wolf: Basically, this notification is then done or persisted in this so-called Nando database where you find Europeanwide which conformity assessment bodies are available for a certain assessment of product rules let's say actually articles in the law that refer to certain product categories and conformity assessments thereof. so that's like the legal branch. then we have this accreditation chain that starts at this international accredititation forum.
Ingo_Wolf: In the case of global scope so to say this is what you mentioned last time Kolene with accreditation chains that start not in Europe…
Carolynn_Bernier: So Brett told me it's called Global ACI.
Ingo_Wolf: but elsewhere global And would maybe improve the example to better understand this.
Carolynn_Bernier: Yeah, that's the name of the international root of trust for accreditation bodies, global ACI. I can give you the reference if you want.
Ingo_Wolf: So I stand for global ACI.
Carolynn_Bernier: Yep. wait the global accredititation cooperation incororated that's…
Ingo_Wolf: So accreditation. All right.
Carolynn_Bernier: who they are let me stick that in the chat
Ingo_Wolf: So that's the one here in this middle chain on the left side. they recognize the European accredititation. the European accredititation center recognizes the national accredititation bodies which are here. for example, ducks.
Ingo_Wolf: and they recognize the conformity test centers or conformity assessment bodies like TIFF in our example. So this is expressed in this rec recognition chain I would say. And then the conformity assessment body actually processes the application of a manufacturer concerning a certain specific product to be tested under a specific regulation. And this leads then to the conformity
Ingo_Wolf: digital conformity credential or certificate of conformity, however you want to name that, which is a credential hold by the manufacturer and referenced in the DPP that the manufacturer issues for example for a certain battery as a physical product and…
Carolynn_Bernier: Mhm.
Ingo_Wolf: the manufacturer and this is the Third stray or trust route that we have to validate. The manufacturer has to be registered in an official business register which is the company identity so to say that is expressed in this path.
Ingo_Wolf: So that's from the issuer perspective, And then I added another diagram that takes the other side the verifier perspective and then the examples we can go through later on. I used colors and…
Ingo_Wolf: hot style to express what is already there in the recognized entity spec or in the verifyable credential spec. maybe let's first look into the verifier side of things and…
Carolynn_Bernier: Wait, wait,…
Carolynn_Bernier: wait. which credential is this? Can you go back to Okay.
Ingo_Wolf: then we can go into the examples because every credential that is exchanged here almost everyone has an example here.
Ingo_Wolf: So they are quite a few but yeah let's take the example of the market surveillance authority as one actor in that ecosystem with privileged access to also sensitive data of the DPP. so this one would scan a battery pass data carrier leading to the DPP of the battery and this is then first of all signed by the manufacturer that's the PPPs signature so to Within the DPP, we have the link to the certificate of conformance or declaration that is signed by the conformity assessment body like TU for example.
Ingo_Wolf: TOF is then recognized in the list of recognized entities for this certain product regulation specific to the product and accredited by an accredititation body so DAX which is again listed in the European accredititation which is listed in the global accredititation. So as we said it depends on how deep you want to validate this trust chain. If you trust already the accredititation body on the national level for example that might be enough in terms of death of the trust validation.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah and then for the notification part the conformity assessment body is listed recognized in a list that is issued by the notifying authority. And this again then goes back to the European Commission respectively Nando database that lists all accredited conformity assessment bodies for a certain product regulation. So that's my understanding and I hope that's also how you see it.
Ingo_Wolf: If not please tell me. otherwise I would then go for the examples.
Carolynn_Bernier: Don' know what the others think. I like does the little animations. I think they're helpful. I don't know what the others think. I think that they're more clear than what I try to stick in a slide with all my arrows. Maybe. I don't know. so I think everybody here recognizes the content of my slide, but turn 90 degrees on the side. there are some unknowns for me as… Carolynn Bernier:
Carolynn_Bernier: if the accredititation body is the same as the notifying authority but apparently What? Mhm. Yeah.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, this is…
Ingo_Wolf: what we had already discussed in previous meeting. So for the German example, I think it can be the same organization.
Carolynn_Bernier: But it doesn't matter fundamentally.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah. Yeah.
Carolynn_Bernier: It doesn't matter if we're just interested in having an example. does it really matter if it's 100% correct or not? I don't know because they could be the same but they could be different but it doesn't really matter I think in which sense CE marking so what we don't see is the CE mark though so first of all is do others have opinions on…
Ivan_Herman: Yeah.
Carolynn_Bernier: what was presented Ivan, you're okay with this? Yeah, looks good. yeah.
Business Identity And Conformity Assessment
Ronald_Koenig: Maybe a question for my understanding is …
Carolynn_Bernier: No. Yeah.
Ronald_Koenig: what the business register is doing it gives the business identity right so that means that issue EUCC and with the EUCC you get was legal identifiers name legal representative whatever you need to be a legal entity which can act and issue for example the DPP the conforming assessment. This is for example the But this is also a company. Should not this have a business identity and then assign for example a conformity statement that as a business is conformance assessment body and…
Ronald_Koenig: this will be issued through this recognized entities. So that mean for me every entity here…
Carolynn_Bernier: This is a good Yes.
Ronald_Koenig: which has legal personality needs more or less something which comes from the business register and then gets assigned additional claims about it. for example, is a CB something like that.
Carolynn_Bernier: So what I'm reformulating with my understanding is that for example when TIV presents issues their conformity assessment credential it is somehow linked to their the IV identity credential.
Carolynn_Bernier: So there is so TV issues a conformity assessment credential. Okay. But they …
Carolynn_Bernier: but they should or somehow link this to the identity credential that they received from their own business registry. Right. Is that what you were saying, Ronald? No.
Ronald_Koenig: Yeah, what I mean is a little bit more in the sense that is bound.
Ronald_Koenig: Let me say you are the TIFF in Germany for example. You get the identity price identifier and…
Carolynn_Bernier: Mhm. Mhm.
Ronald_Koenig: your identity credential like you are the TIFF you have a legal number. You are registered in Germany as some legal entity which has legal personality and…
Carolynn_Bernier: Mhm.
Ronald_Koenig: then you get additionally a credential which says okay you were assessed as what is it conformity assessment body which is enabled to provide for example conformity assessment for a certain product and if the market survival and wants to verify this one. He gets this assessment credential which was issued by the TU and the TU itself can date that it is really a legal entity which is acting as a legal entity with the special claim which is bound to its identity that he is also a confirance assessment body and authorized
Ronald_Koenig: to issue this kind of redentials. that we had it before with chain credentials where we express that someone is authorized by another entity to do some issuing of certainty.
Carolynn_Bernier: Mhm. Yes.
Ronald_Koenig: Because otherwise you don't know. For example, a manufacturer cannot issue a conformity assessment certificate because he is not entitled to do so. Even it is a legal entity because the PPP is just…
Carolynn_Bernier: But I think you were talking about the…
Ronald_Koenig: because he is a legal entity therefore he can do it. But for the assessment body can only do it if he has received authorization to do so.
Carolynn_Bernier: if you go up to the other figure you Ronald or maybe you arrived a bit late but is that there's this
Carolynn_Bernier: There's an arrow there. This is as Ingo was pointing out that the arrow on the left of TUV horizontal that arrow is wait that little wrong thing. This is the credential that says that TUV has the power to issue those conformity assessment credentials issued by the accredititation body which is DAX that redential that credential there plus the EUCC credential about TUV that TUV received from their own business register in which they are registered. So there's two credentials here.
Carolynn_Bernier: their identity plus These two credentials together somehow need to be presented. Rio, your hand is up.
Legal Requirements For Authority Credentials
Rigo_Wenning: Yeah, it's even worse as you described Kolin because the accredititation. So, first of all, we have a pyramid of bodies which is DAX and this notified authorities are recognized by the European Commission and they can now have some kind of private company doing conformity assessment but not any conformity assessment. So if we want to have a machine readable version of that which is going into a verifiable credential we also must include in this conformity assessment credential.
Carolynn_Bernier: Mhm.
Rigo_Wenning: So that gives you authority to do conformity assessment. We need to include some kind of semantics of what they can do. And this kind of reminds me of my discussion with Rolle on the link types in the SPAS architecture because Phil Archer registered DPP as a link type in RFC 8288. And here you would also integrate in the formity assessment authority in the kind of permission.
Rigo_Wenning: It's like a driving license and in a driving license it says you can drive cars and I can drive cars and motorbikes and my friend can drive cars, motorcycles and lorries. And here it's the same is you get an authority and then we need to have some kind of categories which I mean for linked data is just a joke. it's very easy but we need to integrate also the permissions into the credentials for the authority because only if the tof has acted within its power or delegation of power the conformity assessment
Rigo_Wenning: is valid because if it's outside of their power because they have done conformity assessment on atomic clocks
Carolynn_Bernier: Yeah, I agree.
Carolynn_Bernier: In the last link I posted, you have all the meta data that you need to do all of what you just said. So you have the regul So this is a list of notified bodies. so conformity assessment bodies that have been notified by an accredititation body or a notifying body to the commission that is indeed qualified to issue this type of credential to someone. So here you have all the required metadata. You have the on the left here you have the battery regulation regulation EU 2023 something or other.
Carolynn_Bernier: That's the battery regulation. So I agree that the regulation is part of the metadata. Then you have 2023 1542. And so this is basically I'm not sure I understand.
Rigo_Wenning: Ivan, can you explain what the re specification is? Are the recognized entities? Yes. Yes. And here we have the absolute perfect proof cowin that spreading or that splitting the Monday and the Wednesday call is not a good idea. Anyway, but I
Carolynn_Bernier: So what we're seeing here is recognition scope. So Yeah.
Ingo_Wolf: This is exactly …
Ingo_Wolf: what I was missing in the recognized entity spec or verified credential spec So exactly this aspect that you not only say this conformity assessment body is accredited for doing assessments but also for assessments related to a reference regulation or specific assessment criteria.
Ingo_Wolf: This is what I added here as a recognition scope. because I didn't find any other way to express it and
Carolynn_Bernier: Yeah. Yeah.
Carolynn_Bernier: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Rigo_Wenning: Yeah, but…
Rigo_Wenning: but that's the perfect thing except that Ingu, we need to now leverage the power of link data by saying hey because we have two streams of verification that run in parallel. The one verification who is the one making a claim actually the one who pretends to make that claim, That's the cryptographic verification. And then we have also the linked data verification whether the secured semantics in there are actually the semantics we need for the downstream verification.
Carolynn_Bernier: Ah yeah.
Rigo_Wenning: And that is where we only need structure because that is a generic problem and we may have a very simple vocabulary or taxonomy for the DPP. I don't think it has to be complex but the specification that Ivan mentioned need to be sufficiently generic but tell me what do I need to fulfill this do I need to have taxonomy or some old specification or some such.
Rigo_Wenning: I think the specification needs to give a hint because there is 150 ways of doing this. Perhaps give a hint on how the community agreed to make this to actually mark this up.
Rigo_Wenning: Ivan to my rescue because I'm not the ultimate link data specialist.
Ivan_Herman: Yeah, mainly there anymore.
Ivan_Herman: But what I put there was how should I say the core of what happens now which has to be extended to specific areas. and in the entity spec you can have this structure which is called recognized action and the spec itself only talks about issuing and verifying but this is a type which has to be subtyped for this and this purpose and probably the recognized actions are for a specific application much richer and much more detailed etc.
Ivan_Herman: But that's not something that the core specification should specify. So you
Rigo_Wenning: No, but Ivan it should have an include statement in Latte. it should be able specification to say if I'm a recognized entity for this and that I can point to a vocabulary that allows me to specify the competencies that come with this accredititation or…
Rigo_Wenning: with This is
Ivan_Herman: the way I would put it that probably you will have to define subtypes of recognized action and…
Ivan_Herman: what the subtypes contains is something that I cannot tell you because I'm not the expert in that area and that subtype will define any kind
Ivan_Herman: of properties that is relevant and necessary for that. So what the core specification gives you is a place where you can plug in your stuff and I presume that the plug-in places recognize too.
Carolynn_Bernier: rent.
Ivan_Herman: If not then that's something that the recognize entity group has to answer to. But my feeling is that that's the idea.
Ronald_Koenig: I agree with this one completely.
Ronald_Koenig: Even what I believe is this specification makes only example and says okay issue and issue is this what You call it reg the scope of power that you are recognized to. And here it is expressed just as a string that means issue. Everybody of us has an understanding what issuing mean in this context. But if you link this one let me say a controlled vocabulary where you define the different scope of powers you can be recognized to for example issuing what was it confirm assessment certificate or something like that. Then you define clearly…
Ronald_Koenig: what the power is you are recognized to with respect to this recognized entity credential. So for example we can here output as Ian Ian said it is a recognized two and…
Carolynn_Bernier: But I'm not sure I understand.
Ronald_Koenig: the action itself then describes what is the scope of power I have or I was recognized for and this has to be done by the notification body which is pushing this power or delegating this power to the recognized entity. Okay.
Recognition Scope And Subtypes
Carolynn_Bernier: What is it that we're talking about because here go in purple you have recognition scope.
Ivan_Herman: Not in this example. Yeah.
Carolynn_Bernier: What I see when I read the spec is you have recognized action.
Ingo_Wolf: Right. Exactly.
Carolynn_Bernier: And is recognition scope part of recognized action?
Rigo_Wenning: I think he's made it up…
Carolynn_Bernier: Where does recognition scope come from? Where do you take that from?
Rigo_Wenning: because he needs it. yeah yeah…
Carolynn_Bernier: You made it up.
Rigo_Wenning: because he needs it. the problem that we have is that the recognized entity specification for the moment because it doesn't have an extension mechanism for us. It is really too simplistic for what we try to achieve because we have a complex system of certifying other certification authorities. So it's a meta level and for the moment if you have a recognized action there is only one type this recognized action and…
Ronald_Koenig: What?
Rigo_Wenning: the action is issue or verify because you either so this is really tied to the cryptographic stream and…
Ivan_Herman: Wait, you are running ahead,…
Carolynn_Bernier: Mhm. Rigo Wenning:
Rigo_Wenning: less to the link data stream. So the verifiable credential just it gets along the way of the typical PGP X509.
Ivan_Herman: Because your initial starting position I don't agree with because in my view the code that Ingle shows is not the one that should be done. the recognition scope should be a subtype of recognized action and that means in that subtypes the action the scope the kind of things that can use in the action has to be extended to whatever you need.
Ivan_Herman: So when you say rigo that the specification is not ready to plug in things it is plug-in label that's what JSON LD is all about. So you put there a subtype and you in that subtype you have the right to define all the additional things like reference standards and reference regulations and god knows what because it is in another vocabulary and…
Carolynn_Bernier: Hi. Okay.
Ingo_Wolf: What do you Heat.
Ivan_Herman: that's exactly what happens. The only problem I have here is where you tie it in. And I think you should tie it to what the recognization is all about.
Rigo_Wenning: So, now we should but wait. This is one of those moments…
Ivan_Herman: Yeah. yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Rigo_Wenning: where somebody should take really exact notes of what just I'm sorry about sometimes you say important things despite the fact that deny so it may be good that for the modeling ingo down that you want to model as a subtype under recognized action in the recognized entities specification.
Ivan_Herman: Uh-huh. Yeah.
Rigo_Wenning: That's what Ivan said, right? Ivan
Carolynn_Bernier: Ian, Why? Sorry, I'm just asking because I'm curious. Okay, I'm curious. I'm a curious person. Why do you want to create a subtype?
Carolynn_Bernier: What does it mean to create a subtype of a type? Right? and because types are limited things ies you can create infinite numbers of vocabularies there's no limits types are limited things so please explain
Ivan_Herman: The spec as of now defines…
Ivan_Herman: what you can do with recognize action things. refineses it defines probably not an enormous amount of things but it defines you what output validation means what this digest multibase means etc. It is all there. It is defined.
Ivan_Herman: If you have a subtype, you inherit so to say all these definitions. It's automatically there. The recognition scope is completely independent in this respect from whatever is defined in the recognized entity spec. So in some sense a bunch of things have to be redefined. If digest multibase is to be used for recognition scope then it has to be redefined redone because it's not automatically So subtype means that the external world can see the subtype as the super type if the only thing they know about is what the super type can give you because the subtypes can give you that as well plus it can give you something else as well. So it's a kind of an inheritance of specifications.
Ivan_Herman: It's inheritance of knowledge and that also means maybe inheritance of tools because if there are tools that sub that concentrate on the of crypto and mechanism of verification and god knows what else they do. They can use it right away with recognized action because they know what they are and the It's not interesting for crypto. It just takes into account all the terms that are there and it does the crypto automatically. If you do something in parallel somewhere then you have to define exactly what it means to do let's say verification or crypto or presentation or whatever. So the typing means a transfer of methods.
Ivan_Herman: It gives you a transfer of possibilities and definitions. Yeah.
Carolynn_Bernier: you talk about subclasses of a class or…
Carolynn_Bernier: something like when you're modeling, So it's a class. So,
Ivan_Herman: The RDF terminologies uses the term type to assign a class to an object.
Ivan_Herman: So the type is in assigning a class. it's also an RDF thing. Correct.
Ronald_Koenig: Caroline type is in JSON ID the over classif…
Ronald_Koenig: but if you go to the ontology then let's find a class for example recognized action with the different properties but the class ID is what we are putting in type so that all the properties which this class has in the oral description is seen here
Carolynn_Bernier: Okay. type is a class,…
Carolynn_Bernier: so recognized action is modeled as a class in Sorryan.
Rigo_Wenning: Yeah. No,…
Ivan_Herman: is a class specified by the recognized entity specification.
Rigo_Wenning: no, no, no. for you.
Carolynn_Bernier: Yes.
Ivan_Herman: It's a class specified by the recon. entity specification.
Rigo_Wenning: And that means you get context.
Rigo_Wenning: That means so what Ingo has done so far is out of context. And what Ivan tells him is please put yourself into the context…
Carolynn_Bernier: What did Okay.
Rigo_Wenning: because that limits inherits tools and…
Carolynn_Bernier: Yes. I so question…
Rigo_Wenning: makes things much simpler for implementers.
Carolynn_Bernier: where because I thought recognized action was a reserved word was just a word I didn't know it was a class actually…
Ivan_Herman: into the class definitions are in the making.
Ronald_Koenig: It's
Carolynn_Bernier: where can I find the class definition
Ivan_Herman: I mean the al and the formal RDF specification for the vocabulary I have an initial version of that in if you want to look at it but it's still in a PR level that's because the community working in VC comes from a different thing than they are sometimes clashing with me because I come from the RDF No,…
Ronald_Koenig: you I tried to find this context and I was looking to the context field but there is no listening of any contact.
Ivan_Herman: no, no. it's not yet there.
Ivan_Herman: If you go to the recognized entity GitHub repository and…
Ronald_Koenig: Okay. Understand. I didn't want to complain I just wanted to understand so that means it's not yet there…
Ivan_Herman: if you look at the pull request, there is a pull request for initial vocabulary which is something that I started doing.
Ronald_Koenig: but for Caroline usually you see this context at the beginning of this credential there should be the context definition and…
Carolynn_Bernier: I Yeah.
Ronald_Koenig: there you find then the reference to the vocabulary…
Ivan_Herman: Exactly.
Ronald_Koenig: which is used inside the credential True.
Carolynn_Bernier: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But yes. But since it was not clear to me that recognized action was a class. so that there was behind there was a nontology that defines this class. It wasn't clear to me. So, I didn't understand. so coming back to what you're saying is that in the context of the meaning of what we want to do with what this credential needs to do basically you're saying that what this credential is doing is defining
Carolynn_Bernier: a scope of recognized actions or…
Carolynn_Bernier: or a actually I'm not entirely certain why recognized action is not sufficient in the case of This potential.
Ivan_Herman: Because at the moment the specification,…
Ivan_Herman: the general specification knows only about two possible actions that it puts there it's issuing and…
Carolynn_Bernier: Mhm. And…
Ivan_Herman: verifying I don't know I am not the expert I am just the RDF
Carolynn_Bernier: why is that a problem?
Rigo_Wenning: No no no no no no no no. That is where I come into the context. Ivan is helping me to model the legal things we want to express. So this is interdisiplinary and fun as always and once I finished eing has raised his hand since a long time. So what we initially said we have the cryptographic verification is there authority and are those the people that they claim to be okay that's the one and you have a parallel verification which is the link data verification which then goes into the legal semantics and saying hey what about the real competency of the authority that claims to
Rigo_Wenning: have authority and do they act within their competency which is a linked data reasoning issue and not a cryptographic issue. that's where Ingu said, " just making up something so I can understand and put this linked data verification scheme." And now Ivan is telling him, "Hey, you can do that much more intelligently if you just hang yourself here in that context." And that makes the two things coming together. And that's really why I was insisting on ing noting this down.
Carolynn_Bernier: Sorry, Ingo. Go ahead. I still don't understand, but go ahead, Ingo.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, thanks.
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, thanks for the feedback first of all. I found it as a very elegant solution to achieve the same thing. and I just wanted to ask for confirmation of my understanding if it's correct. So I would go then to define a new type for example call it scoped recognized action as a subtype of recognized action that allows then to add also these attributes like jurisdiction country reference standard reference regulation and…
Carolynn_Bernier: Why?
Ingo_Wolf: criteria that would be the way to go and then they would not end up as an additional
Ingo_Wolf: object on the same level recognize two but rather inside this object on the same level like output validation or recognized by also.
Ivan_Herman: From my point of view,…
Ivan_Herman: it's But Caroline is very unhappy.
Carolynn_Bernier: Yes. I don't understand why.
Ingo_Wolf: What Yes.
Carolynn_Bernier: What does recognize to come from? Where did it come from?
Ivan_Herman: Recognizing is a property which leads to a recognized action. Yes.
Carolynn_Bernier: It's a property in the recognize entity spec. I'm looking for it and I can't find it in the document. Recognize to data model general properties must be there somewhere. I'm looking for here it is rec recognized.
Carolynn_Bernier: I forgot a D. recognized too. All right okay so that's fine. So why I don't understand why.
Ivan_Herman: and excuse me,…
Ivan_Herman: Caroline, we have a call.
Carolynn_Bernier: Yeah. we're done. So, I didn't understand why you needed a new type of recognized action for me that we only need a recognized action which is issue a credential. for that regulation and…
Carolynn_Bernier: only for the regulation that is mentioned in the body of the credential
Ingo_Wolf: Yeah, this was actually the trick somehow,…
Ingo_Wolf: I was missing specifics to the action of issuing this credential and I added those specifics mentioning the reference regulation assessment criteria those things.
Carolynn_Bernier: Mhm.
Ingo_Wolf: But I added them in a vocabulary that is not related. So I just made it up. And there is of course also the option to derive a new class from the existing definitions.
Ingo_Wolf: That is like a specialization or an extension of an existing class adding more attributes and in this case the scope relevant attributes I would adjust the example and…
Carolynn_Bernier: I think we need to continue this conversation next week because I'm not certain that you need a new recognized action subtype. So, please think about this and convince me next week because I'm not convinced.
Ingo_Wolf: if you don't mind I can push it also to the recognized entity in working branch so that everybody can have a look at it and…
Ivan_Herman: Okay. Bye-bye.
Ingo_Wolf: we can discuss next Thank you. Bye.
Rigo_Wenning: Ingo, if you need legal argumentation, just call me directly or…
Rigo_Wenning: or contact me directly because I think that the issue why we want this to have is a legal reason and we need to explain that legal reason.
Carolynn_Bernier: Okay, thank you.
Carolynn_Bernier: Thank you very much. Bye. Meeting ended after 00:58:31 👋 This editable transcript was computer generated and might contain errors. People can also change the text after it was created.