00:04:44    sankarshan mukhopadhyay:    https://opendataproducts.org/
00:05:36    sankarshan mukhopadhyay:    Replying to "https://opendataprod..."

https://open-data-product-initiative.github.io/open-data-product-spec-2.0/#open-data-product-specification-2-0
00:07:55    Antti Kettunen:    https://github.com/Open-Data-Product-Initiative/open-data-product-spec-2.1
00:08:24    sankarshan mukhopadhyay:    (Just a quick read of the highlights - it seems like thematically this aligns well with the Data Mesh approach where the semantics of data is expected to be moved closer to the source/origin. And considering it as a product brings up product level requirements around service quality, agreements etc)
00:11:24    Sam Curren:    Including the details inside each credential also forces them to be evaluated individually. Most of the ecosystems I've been studying need more generalized rules for credentials, not ad-hoc/per-credential evaluation.
00:12:33    Marcus Ubani:    Maybe a differentiation between individuals and corporate would be applicable
00:13:31    Marcus Ubani:    And also depending if you inject data or just retreive data
00:17:01    Samuel Rinnetmäki:    I guess that some trust registries could be free for all.

Some registries can be monetised by the “registry admin” charging fees from the authorized issuers and/or verifiers listed in the registry.

I guess a minority of registries would charge per query.
00:18:40    Sam Curren:    I understand the economic need to support the operation of a trust registry, but I still cringe at application of this work toward rent-seeking architectures. Honestly, that's why I'm so interested in reducing the cost of running a trust registry, all the way down to producing a signed file that contains the necessary information.
00:20:02    sankarshan mukhopadhyay:    I am not naive to think that TRs won’t be monetised. However, I am at this point unable to see how ToIP’s work on TR can recommend a monetization approach. The spec itself provides many hints around avenues to monetize
00:20:19    Jacques Latour:    the trust registry governance cost money, the registration process cost money, the people time to validate registration, issues, to ensure they are who they say they are... all cost $$$
00:20:45    Jacques Latour:    depends on the governance model...
00:20:46    Marcus Ubani:    Providing a TR must contain a certain reward for the service provider. For govt that is clear, but if you want to foster decentralization, then financial incentives might be necessary
00:21:40    sankarshan mukhopadhyay:    Replying to "Providing a TR must ..."

Someone could decide to run a service like a data aggregator in front of a TR in order to push the value in front of the TR instead of in the TR itself. There are a number of possible opportunities.
00:21:44    Andor Kesselman:    hey guys. have to drop for something. seems like this is a good call.  see you guys on the APAC call and catch you all next week if I don’t see you later today
00:22:04    Antti Kettunen:    Reacted to "hey guys. have to dr..." with 👍
00:23:41    Subhasis Ojha:    I think TR Protocol needs to be completely independent of monetization models .. as businesses decide on that ..
00:24:01    Marcus Ubani:    Replying to "I am not naive to th..."

imho it adds more authority to ToIP if different economic models can be show cased. Becoming self sustainable and provide consulting around it.
It is at least worth exploring the types
00:24:25    Jacques Latour:    spec should consider transaction fees...
00:24:30    Marcus Ubani:    Replying to "Providing a TR must ..."

But you still need to run the infrastructure
00:24:34    Sam Curren:    Non-rent seeking models use free access to governance to leverage the economic benefits of the ecosystem it supports. Rent seeking models seek to place themselves as a monopoly of information in a multi-sided market. I'm far less opposed to charging for inclusion in a registry, I'm very opposed to charging for access to the information in a registry.
00:24:37    Marcus Ubani:    Reacted to "hey guys. have to dr..." with 👍
00:25:09    Jacques Latour:    100% free
00:26:17    Samuel Rinnetmäki:    Reacted to "I think TR Protocol ..." with 👍
00:26:58    sankarshan mukhopadhyay:    Replying to "Providing a TR must ..."

Absolutely - this does not happen for free or, in thin air 🙂
00:28:22    Sam Curren:    Considering the cost and possible feees have an impact on protocol design - there is no incentive to make the infrastructure as efficient as possible if plans exist to charge for it. Desire to charge for trust registries promotes a design heavy enough to justify the charges.
00:28:44    Antti Kettunen:    Reacted to "Considering the cost..." with 👍
00:28:47    Antti Kettunen:    Reacted to "Non-rent seeking mod..." with 👍
00:29:21    Antti Kettunen:    Replying to "Non-rent seeking mod..."

I like how you put this: less opposed  vs very opposed. :)
00:30:56    Jacques Latour:    Registrations in the Trust Registry should/could have a mechanisms to charge a fee Queries to the Trust Registry may have a mechanism to charge a fee (but this is where queries are usually free, 100% free in the DNS world and others)
00:31:21    Marcus Ubani:    Reacted to "Registrations in the..." with 💯
00:31:25    Antti Kettunen:    Here’s the doc we’re looking at: https://github.com/darrellodonnell/tswg-trust-registry-tf/blob/main/v2/requirements.md
00:31:59    Marcus Ubani:    Reacted to "Here’s the doc we’re..." with 🙏
00:33:21    Sam Curren:    Replying to "Non-rent seeking mod..."

Qualifying a participant for participation in an ecosystem has costs - I sincerely hope that the actual cost of just the trust registry is negligible.
00:33:46    Darrell O'Donnell:    Replying to "Registrations in the..."

agreed - my hunch is that most Trust Registries will be free. That said, I am looking forward to seeing the fee-based Trust Registries as movement of fees shows where the value is.
00:35:19    Sam Curren:    I realize I'm in the minority, but I strongly oppose access control mechanisms for reading data.
00:35:54    sankarshan mukhopadhyay:    Replying to "I realize I'm in the..."

My hunch is that there will be ecosystems where the GAs will need access management for the dataset.
00:36:21    Sam Curren:    Replying to "I realize I'm in the..."

GAs?
00:36:41    sankarshan mukhopadhyay:    Replying to "I realize I'm in the..."

The authorities which govern the TRs and related infrastructure for that ecosystem.
00:37:24    Sam Curren:    Replying to "I realize I'm in the..."

I have not yet seen an example of a trust registry where hiding the roles of participants is a requirement.
00:38:40    Subhasis Ojha:    https://data.ontario.ca/. Free data source .. some of the data here is like a trust list
00:39:55    Marcus Ubani:    Reacted to "https://data.ontario..." with 🙏
00:51:10    sankarshan mukhopadhyay:    “Tends to be more lightly attended” 😄
00:52:07    sankarshan mukhopadhyay:    https://github.com/darrellodonnell/tswg-trust-registry-tf/blob/main/v2/requirements.md ?
00:52:21    Antti Kettunen:    https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-trust-registry-tf/issues/101