Re: Interop meeting - today


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 :)


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:

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: <>
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

Chief Technical Officer

Join to automatically receive all group messages.