2023-09-14 TRTF Meeting Notes
Meeting Date
- The ToIP Trust Registry Task Force (TRTF) meets weekly twice every Thursday at the following times (to cover global time zones - see the Calendar of ToIP Meetings for full meeting info including Zoom links):
- NA/EU 07:00-8:00 PT / 15:00-16:00 UTC
- APAC 18:00-19:00 PT / 02:00-03:00 UTC
Zoom Meeting Link / Recording
- NA/EU MEETING: https://zoom.us/rec/share/MyOkpj39nomlrW0fCJi6tgkDfJta9JpyR0iJovg5a60g0IMcgzTP_Mb-Upw79jfj.YGW_9Smp5euCfbBf?startTime=1694700215000
- NA/EU Chat transcript: https://zoom.us/rec/sdownload/Zz2gwrh77ZbY4LxZR2hxKH6X9cpgC6h1UKX2Kj4tk0StVW8CEjLJKa9x0fdhuHEvWsE4mjMDbYBjCfJg.pSYjk7giFLsgrOwB
- APAC MEETING: https://zoom.us/j/92238278364?pwd=bXJoNzltMDJFdWZKWnovUG5MZk0rUT09
(These links will be replaced with a link to the recording of the meeting as soon as that is available)
Attendees
NA/EU Meeting
- Darrell O'Donnell
- Antti Kettunen
- Andor
- sankarshan
- Sam Curren
- Christine Martin
- Samuel Rinnetmäki
- Marcus Ubani
- @Jesse Carter
- Steve McCown
APAC Meeting
Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)
Time | Agenda Item | Lead | Notes |
5 min |
| Chairs |
|
20 mins | Trust Registries as a data product? | Antti Kettunen | There is an Open Data Product Specification, that deals with creating different productizing models for data. Are Trust Registry contents Data products, akin to industry data, statistics, etc.? Should trust query from a TR be possible to be monetizable? Some have also mentioned that the ToIP metamodel is missing the business layer, so this affects also our larger view on the monetization models. We'll do a brief look at the Spec and discuss. https://zoom.us/rec/sdownload/Zz2gwrh77ZbY4LxZR2hxKH6X9cpgC6h1UKX2Kj4tk0StVW8CEjLJKa9x0fdhuHEvWsE4mjMDbYBjCfJg.pSYjk7giFLsgrOwBLively discussion with pro's & con's on monetization of TR's and how that could work. There is a consensus that there will likely be a need for some mechanism to include monetization. |
30 mins | TR Protocol & Requirements | Requirements: https://github.com/darrellodonnell/tswg-trust-registry-tf/blob/main/v2/requirements.md It was decided that we need to push to finalize the TR Protocol requirements in the upcoming weeks. | |
5 mins |
| Chairs | Darrell O'Donnell sankarshan Antti Kettunen work on finalization of the requirements. |
Screenshots/Diagrams (numbered for reference in notes above)
#1
CHAT LOG (EU/NA call) - there were many discussions in parallel to the in-meeting discussions:
00:04:44 sankarshan mukhopadhyay: https://opendataproducts.org/ https://open-data-product-initiative.github.io/open-data-product-spec-2.0/#open-data-product-specification-2-0 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. 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. imho it adds more authority to ToIP if different economic models can be show cased. Becoming self sustainable and provide consulting around it. But you still need to run the infrastructure Absolutely - this does not happen for free or, in thin air 🙂 I like how you put this: less opposed vs very opposed. :) Qualifying a participant for participation in an ecosystem has costs - I sincerely hope that the actual cost of just the trust registry is negligible. 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. My hunch is that there will be ecosystems where the GAs will need access management for the dataset. GAs? The authorities which govern the TRs and related infrastructure for that ecosystem. I have not yet seen an example of a trust registry where hiding the roles of participants is a requirement. |
---|
Decisions
- Sample Decision Item
Action Items
- Sample Action Item