Date   

Re: New, alternating meeting time!

Taylor Kendal
 

Jauan,
Thanks for the effort to hand me back a few hours of sleep. Time and interop are closely entangled :)

The timing is a bit uncertain, but there are evolving discussions (and potential funding) for cross-org dev sandboxes. If/when appropriate, I’d be happy to invite a few folks from the edu front to discuss. 

Propelled by this challenge and federal funding/awards for blockchain/interop projects. 

Taylor Kendal, CPO
www.learningeconomy.io


From: interop-wg@DIF.groups.io <interop-wg@DIF.groups.io> on behalf of Juan Caballero <juan.caballero@...>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 12:29 PM
To: interop-wg@DIF.groups.io; Balázs Némethi
Subject: [InteropProject] New, alternating meeting time!
 

Hey Interopetators!

Thanks to everyone who voted, we have set the alternating meeting time to 2pm PT on alternating weeks, starting THIS COMING week.  So that's 2pm PT 26Aug and 9 Sept, 6am PT 2Sep and 16Sep.  I'll try to get bit.ly/dif-calendar updated as soon as possible, but business hours are long over here in the timezone where operations@... lives, so that probably will happen Monday.

Thanks so much to everyone who has been suffering through inclement time-zones to join us, and we'll definitely reconsider meeting times every 3 or 4 months to make sure the timezones continue to work for the changing demographics of the group's most active demographics. Listeners to the recordings and people with conflicts at both times are still very much invited to participate in mailing list threads, making announcements here, lurk on the github and notion, etc etc. We're excited to keep spitballing and building on the prior art of cross-community mapping next week! As ever, feel free to propose agenda items via hackmd or this list.

Thanks,
--juan

-----------------
Juan Caballero
Research Lead,
Spherity GmbH, Emil-Figge-Straße 80, 44227 Dortmund
Next meetup 19/8: Identity Wallets for electronic authentication in the Pharma Supply Chain

Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525 Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351


New, alternating meeting time!

Juan Caballero
 

Hey Interopetators!

Thanks to everyone who voted, we have set the alternating meeting time to 2pm PT on alternating weeks, starting THIS COMING week.  So that's 2pm PT 26Aug and 9 Sept, 6am PT 2Sep and 16Sep.  I'll try to get bit.ly/dif-calendar updated as soon as possible, but business hours are long over here in the timezone where operations@... lives, so that probably will happen Monday.

Thanks so much to everyone who has been suffering through inclement time-zones to join us, and we'll definitely reconsider meeting times every 3 or 4 months to make sure the timezones continue to work for the changing demographics of the group's most active demographics. Listeners to the recordings and people with conflicts at both times are still very much invited to participate in mailing list threads, making announcements here, lurk on the github and notion, etc etc. We're excited to keep spitballing and building on the prior art of cross-community mapping next week! As ever, feel free to propose agenda items via hackmd or this list.

Thanks,
--juan

-----------------
Juan Caballero
Research Lead,
Spherity GmbH, Emil-Figge-Straße 80, 44227 Dortmund
Next meetup 19/8: Identity Wallets for electronic authentication in the Pharma Supply Chain

Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525 Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351


Essif labs profile

Balázs Némethi
 

Hi all,

Joachim from Jolocom brought this topic up yesterday on the DIF bi-weekly call - 

Essif lab has a proposed interop stack that worts for the group to know of as they will likely push this stack similarly as DHS did. -  https://essif-lab.pages.grnet.gr/framework/docs/functional-architecture/  

 Best,

--

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF


Quick vote on timing of second time slot

Juan Caballero
 

The new chairs of Interop WG want to hold every other meeting at a timeslot later in the day (Wednesday) that would be more inclusive for the US west coast timezones, as well as for the timezones in the eastern half of Eurasia and Pacific (for whom it would Thursday!). If you would likely be attending meetings in that second time slot, please take a moment to vote here:
https://forms.gle/367khx8UvmZsjvyo9

We will pick a time from these three options at the half-hour mark during tomorrow's meeting, and voting during the meeting will be allowed. Once a new time slot has been chosen we will update the DIF calendar, accessible at http://bit.ly/dif-calendar .

Thank you,
__juan

-----------------
Juan Caballero
Research Lead,
Spherity GmbH, Emil-Figge-Straße 80, 44227 Dortmund
Next meetup 19/8: Identity Wallets for electronic authentication in the Pharma Supply Chain

Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525 Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351


Re: Voting Logistics Snafu -- Please Revote before Wednesday 4am PST/1pm CET

Balázs Némethi
 

Hi all,

Good catch,
Interop Chair voting link HERE <-- this is the correct link.

best,


On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 7:24 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@...> wrote:
Maybe it’s the voter registration form. 

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:53 PM <nader.helmy@...> wrote:
Is this the wrong link? There’s no way to vote on that google form

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:40 AM Juan Caballero <communication@...> wrote:














Dear Interoperators:






First off, we have to apologize for some technical difficulties with our first choice of voting solution. Manually checking attendance/membership proved quite difficult, and the complexities of multiple Condorcet methods was also a stumbling block. Rather than try to salvage the original vote, we’ve decided to run a new vote, using a simpler, more manual process.






Please fill out this ballot if you have attended any of the last 4 meetings, using a name and email that would be recognizable from your Zoom handle or membership details (Attendance is checked against Zoom records). We will be using the Schulze method to tabulate the results, following the precedent of Debian, Ubuntu, and the German Pirate Party.






https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSekX5D5l1oXv1Z-jtn6Yq6R3_KwreRDuu2v2zHv2v2zoxeG5g/viewform



Ballots will be open until two hours before the next meeting, on Wednesday at 9am EST/3pm CET.






Thank you,

__interim chairs












Juan Caballero, PhD.




Communications & Editorial, Decentralized Identity

Foundation





Freelance researcher,

consultant, and free thinker




Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351




Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525, CET/UTC+2




Native: English, Español; Functional: Deutsch, Français, Português













This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.



--

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF


Re: Voting Logistics Snafu -- Please Revote before Wednesday 4am PST/1pm CET

Adrian Gropper
 

Maybe it’s the voter registration form. 

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:53 PM <nader.helmy@...> wrote:
Is this the wrong link? There’s no way to vote on that google form

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:40 AM Juan Caballero <communication@...> wrote:














Dear Interoperators:






First off, we have to apologize for some technical difficulties with our first choice of voting solution. Manually checking attendance/membership proved quite difficult, and the complexities of multiple Condorcet methods was also a stumbling block. Rather than try to salvage the original vote, we’ve decided to run a new vote, using a simpler, more manual process.






Please fill out this ballot if you have attended any of the last 4 meetings, using a name and email that would be recognizable from your Zoom handle or membership details (Attendance is checked against Zoom records). We will be using the Schulze method to tabulate the results, following the precedent of Debian, Ubuntu, and the German Pirate Party.






https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSekX5D5l1oXv1Z-jtn6Yq6R3_KwreRDuu2v2zHv2v2zoxeG5g/viewform



Ballots will be open until two hours before the next meeting, on Wednesday at 9am EST/3pm CET.






Thank you,

__interim chairs












Juan Caballero, PhD.




Communications & Editorial, Decentralized Identity

Foundation





Freelance researcher,

consultant, and free thinker




Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351




Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525, CET/UTC+2




Native: English, Español; Functional: Deutsch, Français, Português













This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.


Re: Voting Logistics Snafu -- Please Revote before Wednesday 4am PST/1pm CET

nader.helmy@...
 

Is this the wrong link? There’s no way to vote on that google form

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:40 AM Juan Caballero <communication@...> wrote:














Dear Interoperators:






First off, we have to apologize for some technical difficulties with our first choice of voting solution. Manually checking attendance/membership proved quite difficult, and the complexities of multiple Condorcet methods was also a stumbling block. Rather than try to salvage the original vote, we’ve decided to run a new vote, using a simpler, more manual process.






Please fill out this ballot if you have attended any of the last 4 meetings, using a name and email that would be recognizable from your Zoom handle or membership details (Attendance is checked against Zoom records). We will be using the Schulze method to tabulate the results, following the precedent of Debian, Ubuntu, and the German Pirate Party.






https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSekX5D5l1oXv1Z-jtn6Yq6R3_KwreRDuu2v2zHv2v2zoxeG5g/viewform



Ballots will be open until two hours before the next meeting, on Wednesday at 9am EST/3pm CET.






Thank you,

__interim chairs












Juan Caballero, PhD.




Communications & Editorial, Decentralized Identity

Foundation





Freelance researcher,

consultant, and free thinker




Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351




Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525, CET/UTC+2




Native: English, Español; Functional: Deutsch, Français, Português













This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.


Voting Logistics Snafu -- Please Revote before Wednesday 4am PST/1pm CET

Juan Caballero <communication@...>
 

Dear Interoperators:


First off, we have to apologize for some technical difficulties with our first choice of voting solution. Manually checking attendance/membership proved quite difficult, and the complexities of multiple Condorcet methods was also a stumbling block. Rather than try to salvage the original vote, we’ve decided to run a new vote, using a simpler, more manual process.


Please fill out this ballot if you have attended any of the last 4 meetings, using a name and email that would be recognizable from your Zoom handle or membership details (Attendance is checked against Zoom records). We will be using the Schulze method to tabulate the results, following the precedent of Debian, Ubuntu, and the German Pirate Party.


https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSekX5D5l1oXv1Z-jtn6Yq6R3_KwreRDuu2v2zHv2v2zoxeG5g/viewform

Ballots will be open until two hours before the next meeting, on Wednesday at 9am EST/3pm CET.


Thank you,
__interim chairs



Juan Caballero, PhD.
Communications & Editorial, Decentralized Identity Foundation
Freelance researcher, consultant, and free thinker
Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351
Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525, CET/UTC+2
Native: English, Español; Functional: Deutsch, Français, Português


I'm a doctor, my medical society is embracing SSI, what are they telling me to do?

Adrian Gropper
 

This is not hypothetical. The Massachusetts Medical Society is inviting presentations about SSI.

As a doctor, I have:
  • NPI (a national provider identifier, is useful for getting paid)
  • DEA number (allows me to sign prescriptions for controlled substances)
  • username allows me to sign-in to a patient's health record
I've been told that SSI will let me sign things and authenticate into systems in a way that is more convenient, more secure, and offers more services to my patients - if I add SSI to my iPhone.

I hope that my medical society will suggest what to do or maybe even offer a member benefit that gets me started.

- Adrian


Re: Vote for chairs - Interop WG

Balázs Némethi
 

Dear all,

This email is a reminder to cast your vote for the chairs of the WG. You can do it  HERE (Please, only vote if you have attended 50% of the last four meetings.)  The vote will and 2 pm CET / 8 am ET on 5th August.

To consider your vote(s), please look up the proposed candidates and visit their LinkedIn profile before you cast your votes. 



Dear all,

The vote is live from now on this link 
VOTE HERE (Please, only vote, if you have attended 50% of the last 4 meetings.)

The proposed chairs, not in order are: 
  • Kaliya Young
  • Stephen Curran
  • Troy Ronda
  • Juan Caballero
  • Pamela Dingle
  • Balázs Némethi
  • Nader Helmy
  • Wayne Chang
  • Benny Jung
The vote will end at 2 pm CET / 8 am ET on the 5th of July. (one hour before the meeting)

Best regards,

--

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF



--

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF


Service End Points - what should they be called?

Kaliya Young
 

The Glossary Group has decided to focus on the meaning of service endpoints for DIDs. 


We are looking for community input on our current definitions of 5 different endpoints and would like your input. 

https://forms.gle/SkAmGFpZLZngMi5k8


We are also ranking these endpoints by how important people feel they are to interoperability and adoption. 


We have made space on the survey to name up to 3 additional types of service endpoints you are important to DIDs. 


Our goal is to get at least 20 responses from community members. This group was formed at IIW29 and chose to nest at DIF but is seeking broad input from all the different groups in the community.  Please feel free to pass this link along to anyone you think might have constructive input.


https://forms.gle/SkAmGFpZLZngMi5k8


Looking forward to hearing from you. 


  • Kaliya Young, Adrian Gropper, Juan Caballero, Sankarshan



Re: Test suits at interop WG!

sankarshan
 

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 01:50 orie <orie@...> wrote:
Looking forward to discussing what a test suite is, what test fixtures are, what the difference between unit and integration tests are, why deterministic tests are critical, how normative spec statements are related to testable statements and why that relationship matters.

Possibly through a small component example and then building out to the entire system.


and here is one of my favorite RFCs https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7520

it's what helps you prove your JOSE implementation is correct.

OS

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:31 PM Balázs Némethi <balazs@...> wrote:
Dear all,

We will work on Test Suits! 

We got the green light that the Interop WG will have the power and capacity to work and deliver test suits. I was not completely correct last time with my over-cautious approach. Test suits require no IPR as it stands! 

This is good news. One aspect of the interoperability concept should be an approach like a litmus test - a relatively easy way to understand the state of system B in context of the attributes exhibited by system A. Leading to somewhat easier determination of whether the whole or parts of B and A are interoperable.

On the other thread Adrian mentioned about a "top down" approach. While we consider this I'd like to position the notion that interoperability is significant in design decisions of operators (those who implement a complete technology stack to deliver SSI based services). I believe that we will need to keep this (focus?) group or persona in mind as the deliverables such as white papers and recommendations are produced.

System designers do benefit from artefacts and routines which lead to interoperability. System users perceive the value and resulting benefits. As the discussion evolves it seems to me that there is a need to record the end user flows/experience which could form the basis for testing, measuring and drawing inferences about interoperability.



We will clarify this in the coming weeks with the lawyers but we are told that the group should start planning the test suits! 

best regards,

--

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF



--
ORIE STEELE
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries



Re: Test suits at interop WG!

orie
 

Looking forward to discussing what a test suite is, what test fixtures are, what the difference between unit and integration tests are, why deterministic tests are critical, how normative spec statements are related to testable statements and why that relationship matters.

and here is one of my favorite RFCs https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7520

it's what helps you prove your JOSE implementation is correct.

OS


On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:31 PM Balázs Némethi <balazs@...> wrote:
Dear all,

We will work on Test Suits! 

We got the green light that the Interop WG will have the power and capacity to work and deliver test suits. I was not completely correct last time with my over-cautious approach. Test suits require no IPR as it stands! 

We will clarify this in the coming weeks with the lawyers but we are told that the group should start planning the test suits! 

best regards,

--

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF



--
ORIE STEELE
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries



Vote for chairs - Interop WG

Balázs Némethi
 

Dear all,

The vote is live from now on this link 
VOTE HERE (Please, only vote, if you have attended 50% of the last 4 meetings.)

The proposed chairs, not in order are: 
  • Kaliya Young
  • Stephen Curran
  • Troy Ronda
  • Juan Caballero
  • Pamela Dingle
  • Balázs Némethi
  • Nader Helmy
  • Wayne Chang
  • Benny Jung
The vote will end at 2 pm CET / 8 am ET on the 5th of July. (one hour before the meeting)

Best regards,

--

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF


Test suits at interop WG!

Balázs Némethi
 

Dear all,

We will work on Test Suits! 

We got the green light that the Interop WG will have the power and capacity to work and deliver test suits. I was not completely correct last time with my over-cautious approach. Test suits require no IPR as it stands! 

We will clarify this in the coming weeks with the lawyers but we are told that the group should start planning the test suits! 

best regards,

--

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF


Re: Interop meeting - today

Adrian Gropper
 

A CCG thread presents more rubrics for interoperability. Specifically, I'm suggesting we try to keep VC interop separate from DID interop. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2020Jul/0108.html

So, indeed, let's start with the hard questions first. What's the hardest question?

- Adrian


On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:22 AM Kai Wagner <kai@...> wrote:

Hello Adrian,

thank you for jumping right onto the thread.

The comparison you make is quite nice. Still, I think the profiles will be a bit more complex, especially when it comes to semantic- and trust interoperability/acceptance.

Looking at the technical interoperability, I believe this should not be seen as a narrowing of scope, but as a focus on outcome. In the real world, SSI vendors will not be successful because of their particular technical implementation, but because of their ability to deliver value to as many use cases as possible (while sufficing trust and compliance criteria).

Bringing USP driven competition to the layer of basic SSI interaction will likely lead to market dynamics that make interoperability less likely and might even lead to re-centralization and monopoly dynamics.

As said, I am looking forward to find a consensus on this, but agree with Orie that we need to start with the hard questions to set the scene and agree on expectations.

Best

Kai

Kai Wagner
Partnership Development

+49 176 83 588 604


Twitter: @kai_dentity


jolocom.io info@... Our events
Twitter Telegram GitHub YouTube Blog

Jolocom GmbH, Waldemarstrasse 37A, 10999 Berlin, Germany
CEO (Geschäftsführer): Joachim Lokhamp
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Berlin): HRB 158758 B
Am 30.07.20 um 13:11 schrieb Adrian Gropper:
The Jolocom definition reminds me of WiFi or Bluetooth where seeing the SSI logo would be all one needs to expect a certain level of functionality and where differences in the features of a WiFi or BT implementation are minor and not market differentiators. 

So, your SSI definition approach is fine but would such a narrowing of scope to many be a handful of “profiles” be acceptable to our community.

- Adrian

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 5:17 AM Kai Wagner <kai@...> wrote:

Hello Taylor, @all

thank you very much for picking up the "define interop" discussion again.

At Jolocom, we have been thinking about this for a long time and it is one of our main decision making factor as we move on in developing our SSI technology.

While I hear the points made by Daniel Hardman on building interop only where relevant populations are present, I can not agree with it. In fact, the approach described by Daniel might even lead to a discussion on compatibility, rather than interoperability (see wikipedia citation below).

"interoperability imply Open standards ab-initio, i.e. by definition. Interoperability implies exchanges between a range of products, or similar products from several different vendors, or even between past and future revisions of the same product. Interoperability may be developed post-facto, as a special measure between two products, while excluding the rest, by using Open standards. When a vendor is forced to adapt its system to a dominant system that is not based on Open standards, it is not interoperability but only compatibility."

At Jolocom, we have defined interoperability like this:

"All agents / participants can communicate and interact with each other directly, without intermediaries, regardless of the agent / wallet implementations being used. The participants do so by supporting a common set of interfaces, and communicating using open and well-established specifications. Ideally this communication should not be facilitated by a 3rd party provided / maintained infrastructure, as this bears the risk of a lock in effect and centralization of the larger infrastructure."

With this definition as a starting point, we have tried to operationalize interoperability by describing the result of interop in the following statements:

  • As an Issuer/Verifier I can present one QR code to request interactions, regardless of what wallet/agent is on the other end (I never have to care).
  • As an identity subject/holder I can use any wallet I want, I can move across wallets, including encrypted backups.
  • An identity Holder can present a Verifiable Credential to a Verifier, regardless of which implementation the verifier or issuer uses, or which wallet the Holder uses.
  • As a Verifier, I can resolve DIDs from any DID method and use the DID Document to verify signatures, regardless of which DID method the document is from.
  • As a Verifier, I can check the integrity of the Credential regardless of the implementation used by the issuer of that credential as well as the holder.
  • As a developer, I can use any implementation of SSI tools (i.e. libraries, CLI tools) and expect it to perform its role with other deployments.

The above points are only a start and feedback is much welcomed. Ultimately, we think the discussion on interop need to lead to a modular and open ecosystem where interoperability is achieved by following standards and specifications, rather that "welding things together", which is handled in a "different IIW community".

I hope we can bring the interop-working group to work in that direction.

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

Best

Kai

Kai Wagner
Partnership Development

+49 176 83 588 604


Twitter: @kai_dentity


jolocom.io info@... Our events
Twitter Telegram GitHub YouTube Blog

Jolocom GmbH, Waldemarstrasse 37A, 10999 Berlin, Germany
CEO (Geschäftsführer): Joachim Lokhamp
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Berlin): HRB 158758 B
Am 29.07.20 um 17:07 schrieb Taylor Kendal:
As follow-on to the “define interop” discussion. 

Is it possible/reasonable to land on a common denominator (highest level possible) which could broaden/narrow based on groups represented?

The ability of a system to work with or use the component parts of another system.


Or a bit more specific:


The ability for different systems, devices or applications to connect, in a coordinated manner, within and across organizational boundaries to access, exchange and cooperatively use data amongst stakeholders.


Then the inevitable moving targets fall under various sub-domains (foundational, structural, semantic, organizational, etc.) 

Also, as far as “outputs,” I think there’s intangible value in simply having a neutral venue for building/sharing context. 
*Recommended practice: join DIF interop wg :)

Food for thought...

Taylor Kendal, CPO


From: Balázs Némethi <balazs@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 6:00:39 AM
To: interop-wg@dif.groups.io <interop-wg@dif.groups.io>
Subject: Interop meeting - today
 
Dear all,

A few reminders about today's meeting and next week's:
  • The nomination of chairs will close - if you have not, please nominate using this form
  • Election of chairs will happen over email.  You'll receive information after the meeting
  • It will be open for one week
  • Ballots will be checked against the attendance records of this group: 2 of the last four meetings when ballots close, i.e., last two meetings, today, and next week's.
  • During today's meeting, we'll do a little more issue review on the charter, a little discussion of the ballot, and the rest of the time will be to discuss workitems and roadmap
Best regards,
 --

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF


Re: Interop meeting - today

Kai Wagner
 

Hello Adrian,

thank you for jumping right onto the thread.

The comparison you make is quite nice. Still, I think the profiles will be a bit more complex, especially when it comes to semantic- and trust interoperability/acceptance.

Looking at the technical interoperability, I believe this should not be seen as a narrowing of scope, but as a focus on outcome. In the real world, SSI vendors will not be successful because of their particular technical implementation, but because of their ability to deliver value to as many use cases as possible (while sufficing trust and compliance criteria).

Bringing USP driven competition to the layer of basic SSI interaction will likely lead to market dynamics that make interoperability less likely and might even lead to re-centralization and monopoly dynamics.

As said, I am looking forward to find a consensus on this, but agree with Orie that we need to start with the hard questions to set the scene and agree on expectations.

Best

Kai

Kai Wagner
Partnership Development

+49 176 83 588 604


Twitter: @kai_dentity


jolocom.io info@... Our events
Twitter Telegram GitHub YouTube Blog

Jolocom GmbH, Waldemarstrasse 37A, 10999 Berlin, Germany
CEO (Geschäftsführer): Joachim Lokhamp
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Berlin): HRB 158758 B
Am 30.07.20 um 13:11 schrieb Adrian Gropper:

The Jolocom definition reminds me of WiFi or Bluetooth where seeing the SSI logo would be all one needs to expect a certain level of functionality and where differences in the features of a WiFi or BT implementation are minor and not market differentiators. 

So, your SSI definition approach is fine but would such a narrowing of scope to many be a handful of “profiles” be acceptable to our community.

- Adrian

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 5:17 AM Kai Wagner <kai@...> wrote:

Hello Taylor, @all

thank you very much for picking up the "define interop" discussion again.

At Jolocom, we have been thinking about this for a long time and it is one of our main decision making factor as we move on in developing our SSI technology.

While I hear the points made by Daniel Hardman on building interop only where relevant populations are present, I can not agree with it. In fact, the approach described by Daniel might even lead to a discussion on compatibility, rather than interoperability (see wikipedia citation below).

"interoperability imply Open standards ab-initio, i.e. by definition. Interoperability implies exchanges between a range of products, or similar products from several different vendors, or even between past and future revisions of the same product. Interoperability may be developed post-facto, as a special measure between two products, while excluding the rest, by using Open standards. When a vendor is forced to adapt its system to a dominant system that is not based on Open standards, it is not interoperability but only compatibility."

At Jolocom, we have defined interoperability like this:

"All agents / participants can communicate and interact with each other directly, without intermediaries, regardless of the agent / wallet implementations being used. The participants do so by supporting a common set of interfaces, and communicating using open and well-established specifications. Ideally this communication should not be facilitated by a 3rd party provided / maintained infrastructure, as this bears the risk of a lock in effect and centralization of the larger infrastructure."

With this definition as a starting point, we have tried to operationalize interoperability by describing the result of interop in the following statements:

  • As an Issuer/Verifier I can present one QR code to request interactions, regardless of what wallet/agent is on the other end (I never have to care).
  • As an identity subject/holder I can use any wallet I want, I can move across wallets, including encrypted backups.
  • An identity Holder can present a Verifiable Credential to a Verifier, regardless of which implementation the verifier or issuer uses, or which wallet the Holder uses.
  • As a Verifier, I can resolve DIDs from any DID method and use the DID Document to verify signatures, regardless of which DID method the document is from.
  • As a Verifier, I can check the integrity of the Credential regardless of the implementation used by the issuer of that credential as well as the holder.
  • As a developer, I can use any implementation of SSI tools (i.e. libraries, CLI tools) and expect it to perform its role with other deployments.

The above points are only a start and feedback is much welcomed. Ultimately, we think the discussion on interop need to lead to a modular and open ecosystem where interoperability is achieved by following standards and specifications, rather that "welding things together", which is handled in a "different IIW community".

I hope we can bring the interop-working group to work in that direction.

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

Best

Kai

Kai Wagner
Partnership Development

+49 176 83 588 604


Twitter: @kai_dentity


jolocom.io info@... Our events
Twitter Telegram GitHub YouTube Blog

Jolocom GmbH, Waldemarstrasse 37A, 10999 Berlin, Germany
CEO (Geschäftsführer): Joachim Lokhamp
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Berlin): HRB 158758 B
Am 29.07.20 um 17:07 schrieb Taylor Kendal:
As follow-on to the “define interop” discussion. 

Is it possible/reasonable to land on a common denominator (highest level possible) which could broaden/narrow based on groups represented?

The ability of a system to work with or use the component parts of another system.


Or a bit more specific:


The ability for different systems, devices or applications to connect, in a coordinated manner, within and across organizational boundaries to access, exchange and cooperatively use data amongst stakeholders.


Then the inevitable moving targets fall under various sub-domains (foundational, structural, semantic, organizational, etc.) 

Also, as far as “outputs,” I think there’s intangible value in simply having a neutral venue for building/sharing context. 
*Recommended practice: join DIF interop wg :)

Food for thought...

Taylor Kendal, CPO


From: Balázs Némethi <balazs@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 6:00:39 AM
To: interop-wg@dif.groups.io <interop-wg@dif.groups.io>
Subject: Interop meeting - today
 
Dear all,

A few reminders about today's meeting and next week's:
  • The nomination of chairs will close - if you have not, please nominate using this form
  • Election of chairs will happen over email.  You'll receive information after the meeting
  • It will be open for one week
  • Ballots will be checked against the attendance records of this group: 2 of the last four meetings when ballots close, i.e., last two meetings, today, and next week's.
  • During today's meeting, we'll do a little more issue review on the charter, a little discussion of the ballot, and the rest of the time will be to discuss workitems and roadmap
Best regards,
 --

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF


Re: Interop meeting - today

Adrian Gropper
 

The Jolocom definition reminds me of WiFi or Bluetooth where seeing the SSI logo would be all one needs to expect a certain level of functionality and where differences in the features of a WiFi or BT implementation are minor and not market differentiators. 

So, your SSI definition approach is fine but would such a narrowing of scope to many be a handful of “profiles” be acceptable to our community.

- Adrian

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 5:17 AM Kai Wagner <kai@...> wrote:

Hello Taylor, @all

thank you very much for picking up the "define interop" discussion again.

At Jolocom, we have been thinking about this for a long time and it is one of our main decision making factor as we move on in developing our SSI technology.

While I hear the points made by Daniel Hardman on building interop only where relevant populations are present, I can not agree with it. In fact, the approach described by Daniel might even lead to a discussion on compatibility, rather than interoperability (see wikipedia citation below).

"interoperability imply Open standards ab-initio, i.e. by definition. Interoperability implies exchanges between a range of products, or similar products from several different vendors, or even between past and future revisions of the same product. Interoperability may be developed post-facto, as a special measure between two products, while excluding the rest, by using Open standards. When a vendor is forced to adapt its system to a dominant system that is not based on Open standards, it is not interoperability but only compatibility."

At Jolocom, we have defined interoperability like this:

"All agents / participants can communicate and interact with each other directly, without intermediaries, regardless of the agent / wallet implementations being used. The participants do so by supporting a common set of interfaces, and communicating using open and well-established specifications. Ideally this communication should not be facilitated by a 3rd party provided / maintained infrastructure, as this bears the risk of a lock in effect and centralization of the larger infrastructure."

With this definition as a starting point, we have tried to operationalize interoperability by describing the result of interop in the following statements:

  • As an Issuer/Verifier I can present one QR code to request interactions, regardless of what wallet/agent is on the other end (I never have to care).
  • As an identity subject/holder I can use any wallet I want, I can move across wallets, including encrypted backups.
  • An identity Holder can present a Verifiable Credential to a Verifier, regardless of which implementation the verifier or issuer uses, or which wallet the Holder uses.
  • As a Verifier, I can resolve DIDs from any DID method and use the DID Document to verify signatures, regardless of which DID method the document is from.
  • As a Verifier, I can check the integrity of the Credential regardless of the implementation used by the issuer of that credential as well as the holder.
  • As a developer, I can use any implementation of SSI tools (i.e. libraries, CLI tools) and expect it to perform its role with other deployments.

The above points are only a start and feedback is much welcomed. Ultimately, we think the discussion on interop need to lead to a modular and open ecosystem where interoperability is achieved by following standards and specifications, rather that "welding things together", which is handled in a "different IIW community".

I hope we can bring the interop-working group to work in that direction.

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

Best

Kai

Kai Wagner
Partnership Development

+49 176 83 588 604


Twitter: @kai_dentity


jolocom.io info@... Our events
Twitter Telegram GitHub YouTube Blog

Jolocom GmbH, Waldemarstrasse 37A, 10999 Berlin, Germany
CEO (Geschäftsführer): Joachim Lokhamp
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Berlin): HRB 158758 B
Am 29.07.20 um 17:07 schrieb Taylor Kendal:
As follow-on to the “define interop” discussion. 

Is it possible/reasonable to land on a common denominator (highest level possible) which could broaden/narrow based on groups represented?

The ability of a system to work with or use the component parts of another system.


Or a bit more specific:


The ability for different systems, devices or applications to connect, in a coordinated manner, within and across organizational boundaries to access, exchange and cooperatively use data amongst stakeholders.


Then the inevitable moving targets fall under various sub-domains (foundational, structural, semantic, organizational, etc.) 

Also, as far as “outputs,” I think there’s intangible value in simply having a neutral venue for building/sharing context. 
*Recommended practice: join DIF interop wg :)

Food for thought...

Taylor Kendal, CPO


From: Balázs Némethi <balazs@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 6:00:39 AM
To: interop-wg@dif.groups.io <interop-wg@dif.groups.io>
Subject: Interop meeting - today
 
Dear all,

A few reminders about today's meeting and next week's:
  • The nomination of chairs will close - if you have not, please nominate using this form
  • Election of chairs will happen over email.  You'll receive information after the meeting
  • It will be open for one week
  • Ballots will be checked against the attendance records of this group: 2 of the last four meetings when ballots close, i.e., last two meetings, today, and next week's.
  • During today's meeting, we'll do a little more issue review on the charter, a little discussion of the ballot, and the rest of the time will be to discuss workitems and roadmap
Best regards,
 --

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF


Re: Interop meeting - today

Kai Wagner
 

Hello Taylor, @all

thank you very much for picking up the "define interop" discussion again.

At Jolocom, we have been thinking about this for a long time and it is one of our main decision making factor as we move on in developing our SSI technology.

While I hear the points made by Daniel Hardman on building interop only where relevant populations are present, I can not agree with it. In fact, the approach described by Daniel might even lead to a discussion on compatibility, rather than interoperability (see wikipedia citation below).

"interoperability imply Open standards ab-initio, i.e. by definition. Interoperability implies exchanges between a range of products, or similar products from several different vendors, or even between past and future revisions of the same product. Interoperability may be developed post-facto, as a special measure between two products, while excluding the rest, by using Open standards. When a vendor is forced to adapt its system to a dominant system that is not based on Open standards, it is not interoperability but only compatibility."

At Jolocom, we have defined interoperability like this:

"All agents / participants can communicate and interact with each other directly, without intermediaries, regardless of the agent / wallet implementations being used. The participants do so by supporting a common set of interfaces, and communicating using open and well-established specifications. Ideally this communication should not be facilitated by a 3rd party provided / maintained infrastructure, as this bears the risk of a lock in effect and centralization of the larger infrastructure."

With this definition as a starting point, we have tried to operationalize interoperability by describing the result of interop in the following statements:

  • As an Issuer/Verifier I can present one QR code to request interactions, regardless of what wallet/agent is on the other end (I never have to care).
  • As an identity subject/holder I can use any wallet I want, I can move across wallets, including encrypted backups.
  • An identity Holder can present a Verifiable Credential to a Verifier, regardless of which implementation the verifier or issuer uses, or which wallet the Holder uses.
  • As a Verifier, I can resolve DIDs from any DID method and use the DID Document to verify signatures, regardless of which DID method the document is from.
  • As a Verifier, I can check the integrity of the Credential regardless of the implementation used by the issuer of that credential as well as the holder.
  • As a developer, I can use any implementation of SSI tools (i.e. libraries, CLI tools) and expect it to perform its role with other deployments.

The above points are only a start and feedback is much welcomed. Ultimately, we think the discussion on interop need to lead to a modular and open ecosystem where interoperability is achieved by following standards and specifications, rather that "welding things together", which is handled in a "different IIW community".

I hope we can bring the interop-working group to work in that direction.

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

Best

Kai

Kai Wagner
Partnership Development

+49 176 83 588 604


Twitter: @kai_dentity


jolocom.io info@... Our events
Twitter Telegram GitHub YouTube Blog

Jolocom GmbH, Waldemarstrasse 37A, 10999 Berlin, Germany
CEO (Geschäftsführer): Joachim Lokhamp
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Berlin): HRB 158758 B
Am 29.07.20 um 17:07 schrieb Taylor Kendal:
As follow-on to the “define interop” discussion. 

Is it possible/reasonable to land on a common denominator (highest level possible) which could broaden/narrow based on groups represented?

The ability of a system to work with or use the component parts of another system.


Or a bit more specific:


The ability for different systems, devices or applications to connect, in a coordinated manner, within and across organizational boundaries to access, exchange and cooperatively use data amongst stakeholders.


Then the inevitable moving targets fall under various sub-domains (foundational, structural, semantic, organizational, etc.) 

Also, as far as “outputs,” I think there’s intangible value in simply having a neutral venue for building/sharing context. 
*Recommended practice: join DIF interop wg :)

Food for thought...

Taylor Kendal, CPO


From: Balázs Némethi <balazs@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 6:00:39 AM
To: interop-wg@dif.groups.io <interop-wg@dif.groups.io>
Subject: Interop meeting - today
 
Dear all,

A few reminders about today's meeting and next week's:
  • The nomination of chairs will close - if you have not, please nominate using this form
  • Election of chairs will happen over email.  You'll receive information after the meeting
  • It will be open for one week
  • Ballots will be checked against the attendance records of this group: 2 of the last four meetings when ballots close, i.e., last two meetings, today, and next week's.
  • During today's meeting, we'll do a little more issue review on the charter, a little discussion of the ballot, and the rest of the time will be to discuss workitems and roadmap
Best regards,
 --

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF


Re: Interop meeting - today

Adrian Gropper
 

A "Top Down" way to structure the work of the interoperability WG, complementing the ethical imperative, would be to collect the top 10 issues from today's hearings on Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. It would be relatively straightforward to go through this one NYTimes article https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/07/29/technology/tech-ceos-hearing-testimony and pick out the top 10 issues raised that touch on decentralized identitifiers and verifiable credentials. Once we have those 10, the exercise would have us analyze how interoperability might mitigate those concerns and what the overlap is with DID and VC.

Top Down would be a contrast to the current Bottom Up approach where different groups like DIF and ToIP organize to tackle a dozen or more subsidiary standards like DIDcomm and SDS.

- Adrian


On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:11 PM orie <orie@...> wrote:
Thanks Agrian, that's very helpful framing.

Regarding the position, the decision by Mike Jones / Daniel Buchner and Microsoft to support a "Pure JSON" data model, by deleting `@context` and destroying interoperability with JSON-LD is clear example of an attempt to create vendor lock in, and reduce choices, and destroy interoperability for political reasons.

I suggest we all be vigilant to the implications of decisions like that, and I would argue that the W3C DID WG should remove the "Pure JSON" data model from consideration, since there are no implementations, and it can be distinguished from JSON-LD, by the lack of an `@context`.... they literally just delete the property to break compatibility.

I'm eager to have this WG formalized so we can start to tackle the tough problems related to interoperability in ongoing standards work, including Open ID Foundations current lack of support for JSON-LD credentials  (including formats used by DIF Members like Transmute and Mattr) and the W3C DID WG JSON and CBOR representations which are entirely dependent on centralized registries, and which break compatibility for political reasons.

If we can't have conversations like this, in this WG, I would like to know sooner, rather than later :)

OS


On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:20 AM Adrian Gropper <agropper@...> wrote:
I'm a fan of the ethics perspective on interoperability as articulated by Heinz von Foerster: http://www.cybsoc.org/heinz.htm

The Ethical Imperative! "Act always so as to increase the number of choices.". A preferred form is "I always act so as to increase the number of choices."†

In our context, I would extend this to *meaningful* choices. That means individuals and other adopters of SSI should not be locked-in either for lack of standards or for standards that do not promote real-world competition and choice at a practical level. The DHS SVIP program has set a good example so far. I hope we can extend von Foerster's ethics approach more broadly.

- Adrian

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:08 AM Taylor Kendal <taylor@...> wrote:
As follow-on to the “define interop” discussion. 

Is it possible/reasonable to land on a common denominator (highest level possible) which could broaden/narrow based on groups represented?

The ability of a system to work with or use the component parts of another system.


Or a bit more specific:


The ability for different systems, devices or applications to connect, in a coordinated manner, within and across organizational boundaries to access, exchange and cooperatively use data amongst stakeholders.


Then the inevitable moving targets fall under various sub-domains (foundational, structural, semantic, organizational, etc.) 

Also, as far as “outputs,” I think there’s intangible value in simply having a neutral venue for building/sharing context. 
*Recommended practice: join DIF interop wg :)

Food for thought...

Taylor Kendal, CPO


From: Balázs Némethi <balazs@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 6:00:39 AM
To: interop-wg@dif.groups.io <interop-wg@dif.groups.io>
Subject: Interop meeting - today
 
Dear all,

A few reminders about today's meeting and next week's:
  • The nomination of chairs will close - if you have not, please nominate using this form
  • Election of chairs will happen over email.  You'll receive information after the meeting
  • It will be open for one week
  • Ballots will be checked against the attendance records of this group: 2 of the last four meetings when ballots close, i.e., last two meetings, today, and next week's.
  • During today's meeting, we'll do a little more issue review on the charter, a little discussion of the ballot, and the rest of the time will be to discuss workitems and roadmap
Best regards,
 --

Balázs Némethi
Operations @ DIF



--
ORIE STEELE
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries