Who can see your viewing activity?
If anyone has feedback or questions to share through audio please use the raise hand feature. Thank you.
someone needs to mute their line
I’m going to point Victor at the Internet of Education TF on the ToIP wiki: https://wiki.trustoverip.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66102
Thanks Drummond - Here’s another resource aimed at a broader audience. http://internetofeducation.org
Taylor! You’re the guy who can help Victor the most here.
@Victor, happy to connect - firstname.lastname@example.org
Taylor, is the http://internetofeducation.org link on the IoE TF wiki page?
@DR It’s not since we are still in “soft launch” but will be :)
Cool. Please do add it to the wiki when u r ready.
Notice the overwhelming Canadian presence here today? What’s in the water up there that they are always leading in digital identity?? ;-)
(or is it the beer ;-)
no, the hockey….
the beer for sure, we have real beer ;0
Oh, of course, the hockey! They are skating to where the credentials are going!!
(All that is needed is Scott’s Implementation Plan and we’ll have this sorted)
in BC ot
it's more soccer passes))
Someone needs to meme-ify that! CA: skating to where creds and SSI are going.
Trust over IP Foundation Zoom 1
Excellent and very encouraging set of topics and presentations here. Apologies to have to jump off the call. -David
Carly's idea of creating material for researchers to apply for funding directed specifically to SSI is important and a great idea
+1 to the idea
It’s really a great use of DIDs. https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/
I still don’t agree that “Transform” can be a phase. Transform is something you do TO an ecosystem, and those actions are or should be continuous.
One question I can just type in chat: is the Solution Pack a deliverable from this WG?
Steve's presentation provides a very logical framework and I can see the application in our own projects. I see it as an iterative roadmap.
Optimize may be a better term than transform
Keep in mind that the primary artifacts in layer are a business model and corresponding governance framework. There might not be any identifiable software beyond layer 3.
“artifacts in layer 4” That’s important.
+1 similar artifacts that Steve mentions in the package were similar to what I was thinking would be outputs of the researcher identifiers
Like any partnership, provisions for dissolution would have to be included in the governance framework.
Partners will come and go all the time. There need to be rules for dealing with that.
@scott, yes we're just talking about guidance for this here
Seems very similar to consortium model?
+1 Eric. Consortium is probably a good name for it.
Yes, consortiums seem important moving forward.