2021-04-12 CTWG Meeting Notes

Meeting Date

• Apr 12, 2021 

Attendees

• @Drummond Reed

• @Rieks Joosten

• @Daniel Hardman

• @Dan Gisolfi

• @Michael Michael

• @line.kofoed

• @Paul Knowles

• @Scott Whitmire

• @Steven Milstein

• @foteinos (GRNET)

• @Scott Perry

Main Goal of this Meeting:

To again see if we can finalize the ToIP Terms tooling specification.

Agenda 

Recording

• link to the file

Presentation(s)

• none

Documents

• ToIP Terms tooling specification

Notes

1. New members

   1. Line Kofoed - co-founder of Bloqzone in the Netherlands - involved with the Sovrin Foundation and Sovrin Governance Framework development

2. Announcement of ToIP Steering Committee approval of a bounty up to $20K

3. The new Interoperability Working Group for Good Health Pass Glossary is growing rapidly!

   1. @Rieks Joosten has suggested the incorporation of a specific set of concepts including one for Parties, Actors, and Actions

      1. They have also created several more, including Jurisdictions and Guardianship

      2. @Rieks Joostensuggests that first we should have a discussion of whether they are acceptable

      3. ACTION: @Drummond Reed to set up a special meeting to discuss the Parties, Actors, and Actions vocabulay with @Rieks Joostenand @line.kofoed

4. Proposal for License Page to provide a source link for any contributed material

   1. @Michael Michaelraised the question of how attribution will be displayed when it is rendered

   2. @Daniel Hardmanshared that we need to make sure that the internal data format carries the attribution

   3. Michael believes that renderings should need to show attribution

   4. @Drummond Reedasked Michael to take that to the CTWG Slack and put up a poll to see how CTWG members feel about the topic of display of attribution

5. Continue discussion of open issues with the ToIP Terms tooling specification. 

   1. @Daniel Hardman showed a PR he wrote based on @Rieks Joosten's feedback on the proposed specification 

   2. He explained that most of what Rieks did was break out sections and add more detail

   3. We discussed Rieks suggested use of YAML for configuration files so that they are not expressed in a tool-specific way. 

   4. @Daniel Hardman suggested that we consider Python for development. That opened the question of language.

      1. Daniel suggested that it needs to be script-friendly and cross-platform

      2. His primary candidates are Python and Javascript

      3. Possibly Ruby or PHP

      4. Rieks priority is that the code is easy to maintain and to execute it, i.e., with pipe-able content. Fast execution is not important.

      5. @Drummond Reed suggested that this tool is best for a text-oriented language

      6. Daniel said that it should be a language that needs to be scriptable so that output can be piped from one module to another

      7. We discussed internationalization for the tool itself. @Rieks Joosten suggested that it was a future requirement.

      8. DECISION: The following are requirements for the ToIP Term tool set:

         1. The code MUST be open source under an Apache 2 license.

         2. The code MUST be easy to maintain by other developers than the original developer(s).

         3. The code MUST support piping so that workflows can be composed in stages that combined arbitrarily.

         4. The code MUST be able to run in a POSIX shell.

         5. The code MUST be able to deal with text in multiple human languages, i.e., it must support either UTF-8, UTF-16, ASCII, etc., as needed for internationalization.

         6. The code MUST conform to the ToIP Term tool specification.

         7. The design for the code MUST be approved by the CTWG before code development proceeds.

         8. Preference will be given for rapid development.

6. Are we ready to proceed to a bounty? If not, what remains to be done?

   1. DECISION: We will proceed with a bounty for the ToIP Terms tooling specification with the revisions proposed by @Rieks Joosten

   2. ACTION: @Daniel Hardman to complete  incorporation of @Rieks Joostenproposed revisions.

   3. ACTION: @Daniel Hardman volunteered to develop a written description of the bounty.

   4. ACTION: @Rieks Joosten will collaborate with Daniel on that description.

   5. ACTION: ALL—anyone who has a suggestion for the description for the bounty, or how to proceed with the bounty program, please post it to our Slack channel.

   6. ACTION: @Drummond Reed to explore our options for implementing the bounty.

7. Review of Decisions and Action Items and planning for next meeting

Decisions

Action Items