[Speaker 10] Hey, Zach. Hey, Steve. How are they? How are you? Good. Australians. First one on the call. Look at us go. [Speaker 4] Well, Steve's in Rome. Hello. [Speaker 2] Good morning. [Speaker 4] Good morning. It's early for you, Adriana. [Speaker 2] It is. 4am. [Speaker 4] I know. [Speaker 1] Goodness. [Speaker 2] Well, just goes to show you how committed I am. [Speaker 1] There you go. Where are you? [Speaker 2] Yep. [Speaker 1] Oh, my God. Yeah. [Speaker 4] Adriana, I owe you a follow-up. I apologize. I've been busy. But let's get something scheduled next week, okay? [Speaker 2] Yeah, sure. In fact, I'm free all next week. So you're a lucky guy. You can catch me any day, any time. We're actually moving along quite nicely with Surpass. [Speaker 4] Great. [Speaker 2] I don't know how much you know about their regular activities. But anyway, we're moving along. [Speaker 1] I'd be nice to get an update from you. [Speaker 2] Yeah, sure. Now or next week or next meeting? [Speaker 1] Maybe in this meeting, I think. If it's all right, just a few minutes. Yeah, sure. [Speaker 2] I'd be more than happy. [Speaker 1] Let's give it a few minutes to see who else joins the call. Hello. Hello. Hello, Daniel. [Speaker 10] Welcome to camp. [Speaker 1] And there's Brett and Phil. Good attendance today. [Speaker 4] It's had an exciting agenda, Steve. We're all excited. [Speaker 1] Oh, really? It's their last meeting before Christmas. Oh, I'm expecting a few more. Let's give it another two minutes. [Speaker 6] Steve, are you still on Rome? Are you on Rome time? It's ridiculously late. [Speaker 1] No, it's only 9 p.m. Oh, okay. It's quite nice timing. We just had dinner. Brett's on Rome time as well, and we just had dinner together, but he's gone back to his hotel. All right. Let us make a start. So thank you, everyone, for joining. The usual little housekeeping mention. This meeting is being recorded and will be transcribed, and then AI summarized and published to the website. So if anybody has any objections about that, please let me know. The other thing to mention, usual housekeeping again, is that this is a UN project. Contributions, which is not the same necessarily as discussions on this meeting, but any contributions to our published work need to be done in the context of granting your IP, that IP of that contribution to the UN so that all our work can be made available free of charge without any IP consequences. So if there's something you don't want to contribute, then please don't. With that, I'll just quickly summarize the agenda for today, which is, as we may have overheard, we've been in Rome for this biannual UNCFAC forum, and there's a little update here about progress on things, which we'll give. And then, actually, Adriana has volunteered to give us a little update on what's going on with CERPAS. We do have a close relationship there, but we haven't really exploited it. And I think that's one of the things that kind of goes to the second point today on the agenda about testing UNTP's fit with various different industry credentials. One way to do that is to collaborate also with CERPAS and the tests that you guys are doing. And then the last thing on the agenda is a little bit of a discussion for next year and timelines and stuff, and if we get time to go through issues and so on. Has anybody got anything they want to ask or question before we get into it? If not, I might just ask... I see a couple of new names. So, anyone that has not been on this call before? [Speaker 4] Very Christophe, if you can mute. Christophe? [Speaker 1] Yeah, sorry, I'm still in the way, so I will cut off my mic. Yeah, just put yourself on mute. I've muted you. Okay. Where were we? Yeah, new faces on this call. Maybe do a quick introduction. So, anyone for whom this is the first time. I think, have you been on the call before, Adriana? [Speaker 4] Yes, yes, yes. [Speaker 2] Yes, I have, and I introduced myself already. [Speaker 1] Yes, sorry, it's late for me. Is there anyone on the call who hasn't joined us before? Danika? [Speaker 7] I've been... [Speaker 1] With your face, and I forgot you haven't joined us before. Go ahead. [Speaker 7] Yeah, I've been loitering for a while. I work with Steve and Ashley at GoSource, and I've been involved in... I'm a product designer, so I've been involved in the visual design of the human readable version of the credentials. So, if you've seen the... When you can look and see all the text and different things and laying that out, that's what I've been... That's been my contribution for a little while. [Speaker 1] Yes, and thank you for that. It's made them look much more professional, hasn't it? If you click on all those sample passports and conformity credentials, they all look pretty schmick, and that's thanks to Danika. Anybody else on the call that hasn't joined before? [Speaker 9] Steve, Nick Smith here. I haven't joined these calls before. I know that we've been in touch, though. So, yeah, I work in a small company called Cordina, and we're helping industrials with scope three emissions reporting. So, we're helping them get set up for that and looking at the simplest way to provide different supply chain credentialing as part of that. [Speaker 1] Yeah, scope three is the perennial challenge. It's going to get worse. Anybody else? Thank you for that, Nick. Binoor? [Speaker 8] My colleague, actually, I have introduced myself. He is my technical colleague from Belgium. We are a SME based in Belgium. I will repeat myself, but we are developing also European-centric, I might say, the digital product passport for certain industries, textile, battery, and stuff. I don't know if my colleague is online because he was here or not. [Speaker 1] All right. Well, look, we'll carry on with the agenda, and anyone that wants to introduce themselves later can do so. First item is what's been going on in Rome. So, every twice a year, the UNCFAC gets together in a bit of a face-to-face. So, one piece of news is that, as many of you are aware, this project is kind of divided into two. One part of it is a policy recommendation to nations, which is something UN does in kind of high-level policy speak about transparency at scale and what are we asking nations to consider doing. At their economic jurisdiction level. And the other part of it is this project, the kind of technical implementation guidance that is what we call UNTP. So, those two things are two related but separate projects, and Suzanne is leading the recommendation 49-1. The discussions this week have resolved to simplify that document. The recommendation documents normally come in two halves. The first half is what's the business problem, what are the challenges, and what are we actually recommending. And then the second half is a bit more detailed implementation guidance. And so, the first half will get a little bit more narrow focused, because the current draft of REC 49 is targeting not just governments, but industry and various different actors. And we'll narrow it a little bit to more specifically governments, because that's kind of the purpose of recommendations. They're recommendations to member states. And the second half will probably remove quite a lot of the UNTP specific content, and instead just refer to the UNTP website, so that we're not kind of maintaining details in two places and risking publishing a policy document that, you know, six months later or a year later, sort of diverges from evolving content on the UNTP website. So, it'll be a shorter, sharper document. And look forward to reviewing. There'll be an early version out for review in about a week on the 20th of December. So, that's one item that was discussed. Also, just in terms of timelines, the point at which the policy recommendation needs to be approved, these policy recommendations have to be approved by member states at the plenary. And the next one is July 2025. And it has to be polished and ready by April, which includes a public review period. And we'd like to get UNTP, as the supporting technical guidance, sort of more or less ready at about the same time. So, all the stuff that's draft for review and slightly incomplete pages, our target is to get them good enough for first implementation by about April next year. So, there's a bit of work to do and a bit of testing. So, the other things that were discussed this week were, how will we collaborate with ISO, International Standards Organization? So, that, for people that are familiar with ISO, it's a big organization and has a lot of technical committees. And one of them is TC154, which is a technical committee that liaises with UNECE. A project has been approved there to do some early investigative work that will lead to a standard. And it's being done in collaboration with UNECE. And the intent is to base it on UNTP. And there is a UNECE co-lead for that. It's not me. It's a fellow called Gerhard. I don't know if Gerhard's on this call. But he's been working with us and is very familiar with UNTP. So, that should help keep the ISO work and the UN work aligned. We also had some representatives from CENCENELEC, which is the European Standards Body in Rome. And that has been a relationship that has... Basically, there have been some, let's say, tricky discussions about trying to avoid duplication or at least where there is duplication to ensure alignment. I think that discussion with CENCENELEC has progressed nicely. We now have what's called a formal liaison, which means we can sit in those CENCENELEC meetings and see what's going on. Because unlike UNCFACT, which publishes free standards and works very much in the open, ISO and CEN have committees that are much more controlled in terms of access. But now we will have a liaison relationship with them. So, it should be possible to get a good idea of what's going on and work to maintain alignment between UNTP and the CEN work. The CEN work is important because, of course, it is the European Standards Body that will define the technical system standard for the European Digital Product Passport, which is a regulated instrument, unlike our voluntary standards. And it'll be important to align. So, the doors have cracked open there, and the relationship has thawed and looking reasonably promising, I would say. We also had representatives from IEC and ITU, more acronyms, big, basically, UN agencies that are a bit more focused on electrical and electronic goods and a reasonably good strategy for collaboration there. ITU is doing some work on defining, if you like, the conformity rules. Sustainability rules for electrical and electronic goods, but not so much the how and the data carriers. So, it should be quite a nice synergy for something like UNTP to be the transport mechanism, if you like, for electrical and electronic goods and ITU to define maybe some of those sustainability characteristics and rules. We also got approached by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, who is developing a thing called Codex Planetarius. For anyone who's in the agriculture space, you might be familiar with Codex Alimentarius, which is a big rule book of food safety standards from the Food and Agriculture Organization. And WWF has decided to kind of pirate the name, but make it a sustainability standard set for food and agriculture. And a bit like the ITU, they're developing the rules of what constitutes sustainable practices in agriculture, but not so much the carrier and the implementation framework to digitize it. So, they've suggested that they would like to do several UNTP pilots during 2025 in the food and agriculture space. So, it's all basically, I think, good alignment and support for what we're doing from various international organizations. So, I'm pretty happy, I suppose, with this week in Rome. So, Virginia, you've got your hand up. [Speaker 6] Yes, just a small point. IEC, ITU is a UN organization, and anything that ITU issues is also available free. But IEC is a sister organization to ISO, like SENCENELEC. SENCENELEC is the European version of IEC, the International Electrotechnical Commission. And so, it has the same rules as ISO about having to pay and all that. [Speaker 1] Right. Okay, good to know. It is a bit of an alphabet soup for those that are familiar with this, but I suppose the upshot is we continue to gain a recognition and traction, and willingness to collaborate, which is a good thing. Any questions or comments about all that stuff? [Speaker 4] Sounds great, great work. [Speaker 1] Okay. Then, before we move on to the next thing, maybe I wouldn't mind inviting Adriana. For those that are not aware, SURPASS is a EU-funded program to basically conduct experiments to issuing digital product passports really to inform legislation and to help them get it right. So, it's quite an important project. And if I understand right, it's running a whole bunch of pilots in particular industry sectors, mostly textiles and I think one in construction and some in electric and electronic goods, right? But I'll... And there's quite a good appetite really to collaborate with SURPASS because we could help provide some of the upstream due diligence data that feeds into European regulated instrument passports. But Adriana, would you like to give us a little summary of what's going on at SURPASS? [Speaker 2] I'd love to. So, I'm involved. There are several working groups and I am involved in four of those working groups, which is user access, data authentication, UIDs and interoperability. So, as with many of these things, different groups have their both strengths and weaknesses. I'm not going to go into that. The one thing though that I would say now is that SURPASS is divided into two sections which is one, what they call Lighthouse, which is the pilot projects. And then the other part is what I'm involved in with all the other people from the working groups. And so, we're not directly involved with the pilots and I think that's a weakness. I've actually voiced some complaint about that. Not necessarily a complaint, but a concern that I don't think it suits the working groups in my area to be separate from the Lighthouse. So, if UNTP are planning on initiating pilots next year, I suggest it'd be an all-in rather than dividing up people into working groups. However, having said that, our main focus in the working group is around a document called User Stories. And so, there was a version two. I don't think there was ever a version one. And there's a version three. And apparently in January next year, there will be a version four. And I'm assuming that version four will be an update from the pilots under the Lighthouse group get feedback from. So, we're focused, our working groups, all of the working groups that I'm involved in, we are asked to read this document and then report back onto... There's quite a sophisticated spreadsheet that's been put together. And we're asked to then report back in regards to the strengths and witnesses that we see in regards to our particular areas. So, for example, user access, one of the things is because Surpass has got several different actor groups. So, you have one actor, which is the consumer. You have another actor group, which are government agencies and organizations. And then you have another actor group, which is under what I'm terming circular performance. So, if you have a repairers or remanufacturers, people who repurpose products or items, those will have access to the DPP to be able to input information. So, we evaluate this document. And all these documents are available from the Surpass website. So, it would be best if anybody's interested that you go and hang out at the Surpass website for a couple of hours and navigate your way through the documents that are there. And it's interesting because more organizations are now voicing their opinions. So, a recent document upload to Surpass website was from the Packaging Industry Association about how they'd like to see a packaging included into a DPP. So, I'm now actually working on a mural board for the interoperate, which I did today. And I'll again do tomorrow and probably update on the weekend. A mural board for the interoperability group. Because I think that while we wait for the next user story update, user story four, I believe that the interoperability group must be much more prepared in regards to interoperability. So, I tell you this because during the process of putting this mural board over the last and talking about it this week, about the necessity to work on interoperability as a team, I was given the link to a spreadsheet, another spreadsheet. And that spreadsheet has 377 line entries on standards. So, you were mentioning standards. And 375 standards that are applicable to a DPP was collated. Now, I'm not going through every one of the ones that I'm going through, luckily. So, they're divided into columns. And so, I looked at the interoperability column. And in the interoperability column, as in all the columns, you have different criteria. So, you will have high priority or high level of interest, or then you have medium and low or nothing. So, as I was scrolling down, as you can imagine, it's a huge job because that's my area. That's my strength is regulatory and standards. Having worked in food regulation across the Asian region for several years and having a master's in international and Asian food law, that's, I'm quite comfortable in that area. So, 375 line entries, half of them are European standards, and you can't get a lot of information about that. So, I gravitate to the bottom end or the bottom half, which are ISO standards. And then I just select which one are considered high priority. And that's proving to be a very interesting exercise. So, I doubt very much whether anybody in the EU will be reinventing the wheel. They may copy and paste from the various standards and put together a new standard. So, I'll just have a look at what you're talking about, Adrian. I'll just have a quick look at that link that you sent to... Anyway, so I've been going through the standards because I want to be able to... Yes, it is different. It's a spreadsheet. You're looking at a report. And I don't feel comfortable to share that link with you unless I had permission from CERPAS. I think it's actually available from the website. But anyway, I was given a link directly to it because we need to be able to understand the different... There's going to be all kinds of interoperability difficulties going forward. And having spent most of today looking at those issues, it's already... The EU have already done years of background work on everything. So, all you have to do is find... One of the biggest hurdles as well will be regulatory issues. So, as you know, when in doubt, the EU love to regulate. And there is quite a number of regulatory issues that will need to be considered. The guys who were... Most of the people who work in CERPAS or in the working groups are technical people, IT people. So, that's their strength. Their strength isn't... So, they want to do stuff. And then I keep mentioning that there are regulatory boundaries and that we need to make sure that it fits into current regulation or upcoming regulation. One of the issues also that's come up in regards to DPPs is the fact that there's no time boundary. So, when a product is deactivated, and so therefore that DPP no longer functions, how long should that DPP be made publicly available? And then who would be the responsible person for deactivating it? Would it be a consumer who throws out a textile? Would it be the reprocessor or the recycler? I don't like the word recycler. Who then takes that product and has deactivated it because they're about to reprocess it. So, and then once that product has been deactivated, how long? Now, when you go through the regulatory history for the EU on this question, you will find that none of the documents, in fact, there's a precedent that has been set in regards to there is one directive on data retention and there is no... It's very vague. It gives between the 6 to 24 months, but there's nothing definite. And the EU may decide that member states may choose to fit a particular timeframe. So, I made a recommendation in the spreadsheet that we're asked to fill in all the working groups that surpass actually make a definitive time. So that businesses who are creating DPPs then know that once that product has been deactivated, then they have to make that information available for X amount of time and not an arbitrary amount of time. So, these are the kinds of things that I'm finding in regards to my interest. Of course, most of the people there in surplus, as in this group here are interested. We are participating because we have our own commercial interests and we want to be involved in it because we see opportunities commercially as perhaps as well as professionally or academically that we want to be involved in this future. And my interest is from a circular economy perspective and even though I'm currently in Perth, I will go back to live in Asia and that's where I see my strength and contribution. I've lived in Asia for nearly 30 years. My whole education is my bachelor's was Asian studies. So, I see my professional and commercial interest is in the Asian region and understanding how we can make sure that the circular performance of products can be maximized. So, hopefully that's a bit of a summary for everybody to understand where we're up to and the areas that I'm involved in and what we're working on and how we're doing it. [Speaker 1] Okay. Look, thanks for that. That's given me some, or most of many of us, I think some Christmas reading to get our heads around the published material from surplus. I had a look at the stuff from surplus one, but now there's a wealth of material coming out from surplus. To state the obvious, I suppose to people on the call that the European passport is a regulated instrument, right? And what we're doing is a voluntary standard and there are some differences because for example, in Europe, there will be a requirement for a central registry. There'll be requirements about the durability of, as you just said, the lifetime of passports. One area I think that we are very interested to look in is the use cases around access control because we're just about to, I'll answer that question in a second, to update the pages about decentralized access control and how you manage things like how does a consumer who's doing a repair event or something on a product update a passport effectively issued by a manufacturer and how do recyclers get access to privileged information and so on. In a decentralized architecture, you need a different approach to that. We've got some ideas which we'll be writing up, but it'd be, I think, quite important to understand how well aligned they are with surplus ideas. [Speaker 2] Well, I think to answer that question, I absolutely believe, and this is my own personal opinion, is that nobody's got an answer to that. It's so complicated. And so what will probably end up happening like many of these things is that it will be launched, what's an all, and then over the next several years, it'll be worked out. It's simply too big and impossible to sign off on every single scenario that's going to come up and make it workable. It's just impossible. [Speaker 1] It is challenging. And I think that some patterns will emerge, right? And that's why I'm interested to read your use cases because we have identified a few patterns, like if you own the thing, you should be able to update the thing, even if the manufacturer of the thing doesn't know who you are. And there are ways to do that around sharing secret keys with QR codes or something in the packaging. And then if you're an authorized actor, like a recycling plant, you should be able to get some credential that identifies you as that so that you can prove your role, really, even to a holder of data who doesn't know you. So there's a few patterns that we've identified, and I think we'll write them up and they probably won't cover all the scenarios, and it'd be really interesting to just collaborate, really, and see how well they align. But Harley, who's on this call, has put his hand up to write the technical specs for that once I've documented a few use cases. So I'm going to read the surpassed use cases and see if I can pull out a few patterns that we want to document. Question, who's going to represent? So that's not decided yet. It's like hot off the press, I don't know, yesterday, that finally JTC24 got back to UNECE saying, okay, your liaison is open. So basically, pretty much anyone who is a UNECE registered expert is a candidate to be on a liaison with JTC24, but we'll talk to the secretariat about who that should be, one of us on this call or on this group anyway, I think. All right, has anybody got any... Oh, Patrick's got his hand up. [Speaker 3] Yeah, there was just one specific thing you mentioned that sort of rang a bell with me was this concept that what if someone wants to provide an update to a product passport or an update to a credential, and this was something that we were looking at in BCGov quite a lot. Recently, as of last week, there was a new purpose added to the BitString status list purpose called the refresh status, and this was meant to be used for those exact use case where you have a credential that's in circulation that you want to update or you want to provide a new version of that credential, and it would be to signal anyone entering that credential, whether it's a verifier or a consumer, that this credential has a refresh available. So that was one thing that we came up with. It's independent of the revocation of the credential, so it doesn't signal that the current version of the credential is no longer valid. It just signaled that there's a updated version available. If the updated version sort of supersedes that credential and that credential is invalid, you would also revoke that credential and provide a means to get the latest version, and the idea behind that is that the consumer would go fetch the latest version of the credential and replace that record in their system because we don't want to, you know, in our opinion, this would warrant a new credential being issued that contains the same information with maybe a bit more information or some information change or redacted. So this is one thing that we are kind of looking at here. [Speaker 1] Thanks for that, Patrick. I'll just put one little bug in the ointment there. That approach presumably is meant to accommodate the situation where an issuer of a document makes an update to a document, not doesn't revoke it, but this is a slightly different pattern, right? Because a manufacturer might issue, let's say, a battery passport, and I don't know, two years later it gets serviced, the issuer of the update is not the manufacturer, and I'm sure, 100% sure, the manufacturer is not going to want whoever services the battery to overwrite all of their data. So we're talking really, I think, about perhaps a different credential that is linked to the original credential because it's a much smaller subset of changed data, like this is a service event. I can't change what you said about your battery, but I can add a service event. It's more like a visa stamp in a passport than a new passport, right? [Speaker 3] So yeah, that's an interesting- Right, so it would be more about linking a new event, like having a previous product be linked to a new event. Yeah, that's interesting. And it's true that in my case, it's updates meant by the same issuer, right? So yeah, that's interesting. [Speaker 1] There's a difference, yeah. So I think these will be documented in the SOPAS use cases, and they're also in our head, but this will be quite an interesting thing to write over the next few weeks. Phil, you've got your hand up. [Speaker 5] Just briefly, I'm sure, like you, that a manufacturer is not going to allow someone else to modify the DPP. So yeah, you issued something new, but sorry, how do you discover that? What is the discovery mechanism for an additional, an addendum to the DPP issued by someone else? [Speaker 1] Well, first of all, the update rights, yeah, I think need to be passed with some sort of secret key, perhaps a code in the packaging, you know, open the box and you've got rights to it. And then how to discover it? Well, that goes to what permissions would the issuer of... The short answer is I'm not entirely sure, right? But I can... [Speaker 5] Right, yes, yes, I'm glad to hear you say that, then we're as one. [Speaker 1] But I can imagine that if the issuer of the thing who owns the identity and has maybe access to, let's say, a link resolver might allow someone who can prove that they own the thing to add a simple event, if you like, under the same identity. So basically the link resolver would now return a repair event. But working out the permissions of that is not trivial, right? [Speaker 5] Yeah, I mean, I was involved in writing some GS1 words on this. So we put forward a couple of ways of doing it, but it's as yet to be decided. Thank you. [Speaker 1] Are you willing to share those words? [Speaker 5] They're published, I think, on the GS1 in Europe website. I can find them somewhere. [Speaker 1] Your pearls of wisdom in this particular scenario would no doubt be beneficial to us. [Speaker 5] I'll see if I can find it while we're here. Thanks. Adriana? [Speaker 2] Yes, I just wanted to reply to Phil, is that SUPAS have actually identified them, and you probably know this already, Phil, but for those who don't, that have identified... DPPs are easy, really. It's only when you get to circular performance does it become really complex. And also that's the beauty of DPPs in regards to resource management and waste management and how we're going to move forward. So there's authorised actors and unauthorised actors, and that's where unauthorised actors and they're going to become very complicated, especially when you've got things like textiles. But more importantly is that all the manufacturers won't be the ones who will be issuing a DPP. The RIO, what's called a RIO, or the economic actor, could be anybody that places a product on the market in the EU. And that doesn't necessarily mean... So if you are an importer of, say, t-shirts from Bangladesh and you're not the manufacturer, you're just an importer, but you're the one placing that product, you could be a company somewhere else, then you will be responsible for that DPP and not necessarily the little tiny t-shirt manufacturing in Bangladesh. [Speaker 1] So it might be the brand though. Again, I think this goes to the difference, again, between a regulated instrument and a voluntary standard, right? What we're trying to do is provide the lightest possible framework has the highest possible integrity for any upstream actor to issue these credentials, whether or not they're going to Europe. So you could imagine, I mean, maybe not a tiny SME, but some manufacturer in Asia issuing, let's say a UNTP passport with their thing that is used by the brand who is the market entry as basically support information for their due diligence statement and their own DPP. So these things aren't necessarily the same passports. And I think these are some of the use cases to figure out. What is the question here? So... Bath, how can I help in the development scenarios? Yeah, well, I think the answer to that is what we've got to do pretty quick, and we can just do it as a pull request to the Decentralized Access Control page is document the business requirements, if you like, as a smallish set of patterns for this Decentralized Access Control, and then collaborate on the technical solution to it. And this is a fairly urgent task. So if you want to have a go at writing some patents after studying the SOPAS stuff, go ahead and make a pull request. I mean, I've got one in the works. I just didn't have it ready for now. I could perhaps do one and you can update it. But the work ahead of us in this particular problem space is to document the use cases and patents and requirements and then say, here's what we think is a feasible, simple way to solve some of them, at least. But if you wouldn't mind moving on to the next bit of today's conversation, which is another challenge we have is we've got kind of pretty lightweight data models for passport conformity, credential facility record and transformation event, I'm sorry, traceability event. And the data models are beginning to be tested by attempting to create, for example, a battery pass, battery passport using the content guidance that's on battery pass. So what I want to do over, you know, before we get to that April timeframe and say, OK, here's version one of the data models is do enough testing of different conformity credentials. The B.C. government has already done some mine permits and towards sustainable mining credentials. And every time we try to say, how can we make this, let's say towards sustainable mining credential implemented as a UNTP digital conformity credential, you find little gotchas, like the criteria needed to be a text instead of a numeric and lots of these little issues. And the way to discover them is to keep trying, right? Can I make, let's say, a tensile strength certificate for a structural steel using a DCC? Can I do a livestock passport? Can I do a battery passport? And what issues do we discover as we do it? So I'd be quite keen to find some volunteers from our group who have some expertise, perhaps in a particular industry sector to test mapping and through that discover gaps and opportunities to fix our data models. They'll never be perfectly right, but get them better before we release 1.0. So no need to kind of commit today, but I'm just putting it out there that it'd be nice to have someone looking at batteries, someone looking at built environment, someone looking at agriculture and so on. And both the product passport view and the associated ESG schemes, yeah, certification schemes and seeing how they map. We're going to be doing some of this anyway for a few business domains, particularly electrical electronic goods, because the responsible business alliance has announced the UNTP extension intent. And you can see on our site the various credentials, responsible mining initiative, responsible environment initiative, et cetera, that we're going to have to map and figure out. But the more of these we can do between now and March, the better our first release of the UNTP specification will be. So hands up or write or contact on Slack or whatever, if you're able and willing to do some of this. Patrick? [Speaker 3] Yeah, so I've been working on the BC use case for the Mines Act permit. And we also have the tenure title credential, which is the petroleum and natural gas sphere. We went to production with the Mines Act permit based on the 0.5 version. Before we went in production, I did raise some slight concern with most notably the schema, not so much the data model itself, but the JSON schema that's used to do the validation. And I still think that these concerns should be, it's where it should start. I think the first problem I see right now with the way that it's being tested, it doesn't allow extension of the conformity credential, which is the promise of UNTP. I think maintaining this ability for us to extend a digital conformity credential to a BC Mines Act permit is very important. It's very difficult to fit all the information we need. Like there will always be this little extra bit that you need to fit in there. It's very similar to, for those who know how the MDL worked, the driver's license, you have the baseline for the MDL, but then jurisdiction can add their own sort of namespace. So currently I think the schema validation is a little bit too strict on that account. So that's like my first thing that I noticed. I think this is the biggest point. [Speaker 1] Because the intent is that classes are meant to be, not, I forget what the JSON schema term is, but they're not meant to be locked. They are supposed to be such that you can add any properties you want, but you can't change. [Speaker 3] Yeah, instead of looking for an exact match, it's just about us ensuring that the thing defined by the UNTP are present and then enable extension with what is reasonable. [Speaker 1] And there's a little bug with the type constraints in the schema because we generate schema that basically control the values allowed in the type property. [Speaker 3] It's mostly the type that I'm talking about. [Speaker 1] Yeah, that's mostly what it comes down to. And it's a mistake, right? Because we did it on the basis that we thought every extension would have its own schema. And so the type list would match the schema. But that's not the case, right? [Speaker 3] Because you can- Yeah, so that's one thing we had to do. Like for the tenure title, we did generate our own schema. And that's the thing. So like when we talk about the BC Mines Act permit credential, this is not meant to be extended, right? So the BC Mines Act permit credential, which is an extension of a digital confirmity credential is the final version, right? Is what BCGov is issuing as its authoritative document over a mine permit. So in those case, you can have probably a more strict schema around a BC Mines Act permit credential, which should also meet the requirement for the conformity credential schema. Currently, the limitation I see, and I'm sorry for people on the call if this just went a bit too technical all of a sudden, but it's just that it doesn't allow, like it treats it as the final version, right? So we cannot add something like a permit number, right? So which is very important to us. [Speaker 4] And- Patrick, did you stop raising a GitHub issue that we can use to track this conversation? [Speaker 3] Yes, yes, I will do that. By the way, I'm just through the process. So we've been sent some kind of results. So I'm just going through the line by line to try to see how this could be addressed. So I'll summarize this in a GitHub issue and we can keep discussing it over there. [Speaker 4] Yeah, because we are working on the extensions validation process. And so there's work progressing in that direction to address some of these concerns that we've seen as well as the ones that you've started to see as well. So this is an important place to get right. And we're very committed to getting that right for sure. [Speaker 3] Yeah, the other part that we could share at another time, I see it's getting close to the end, so I'm not going to go too much, but is about the actual business mapping of values, right? We did found some realizations while looking at the source. Obviously our data about the mine permit comes from a ministry in BCGov and they have their own database and their own system. And this sort of exercise of putting this into a digital conformity credential, we came to a few realization, right? That nothing is, it's not going to perfectly work. We need to interpret this data and what is fit for digital conformity credential, what is not. And we had to deal with a lot of data inconsistencies, which I don't think it's a BC only problem. There are some systems that are very old. They've been, some of these, the mine permit, they exist since the seventies, right? So they went through a lot of iteration of data and there's some data inconsistencies that can be difficult to deal with, which is a subject I'd be interested to discuss with anyone working on an implementation. [Speaker 4] Patrick, data inconsistencies in old systems is a very big problem that is probably beyond the scope of this group. But we probably want to think about how we provide guidance when people run into those issues. Like data inconsistencies in big old systems are a bane of my existence. But yeah, I think a guidance here is helpful. [Speaker 3] Yeah, I'll have thoughts to share this in due time. Yeah. [Speaker 1] Okay, so we got some actions then. To read the surplus stuff, Patrick to raise some issues. There've been some volunteers online already to do some of this mapping. Let's start each of those with a ticket saying, let's say battery pass mapping, create a ticket, own it, and we can comment on it and collaborate together. And then I think what we'll do is create a UNTP page, which is basically a catalog of these kind of sample credentials in different environments that will be quite useful reference for those seeking to implement anyway. And probably manage it that way, right? Right. So that's, I'm not sure I've got anything else for today. [Speaker 4] You said on your agenda, a schedule in the new year, like you want to kind of... [Speaker 1] Yeah, so just quickly, the next meeting is Boxing Day. So I'm assuming nobody's going to object if we cancel that meeting and say that the, so really the next meeting will be a month from now. And most people are going to be having a two week break. I know not everyone. So really it's two working weeks from now. And then hopefully we can, those that are still playing with this stuff during the break, go nuts on Slack and issues and work doesn't stop in between these meetings, but no objections, right? Canceling the next one, I presume. And so, yeah, on timelines, I think, like I said, we have to get to, let's say end of March with all the UNTP pages, including decentralized access control, which is a bit empty at the moment, populated. And we've also got to do a bit of testing. And that testing is in these two shapes, right? The kind of, how do I map this business requirement to this credential? The stuff we've been talking about and some actual implementer interoperability testing would be good. So I know we've got about at least a dozen commitments. And I think what I'd like to do is wake those up right after Christmas to say, while we're doing that, if you like functional testing, let's get two or three or four technology vendors together. And make sure we do some interoperability testing before March or April. So looking for volunteers for that as well, put your hand up on Slack or raise a ticket to say, ready to interrupt test or something. And we'll kick that off. Adriana? [Speaker 2] I just want to clarify, are you talking about the practical application of a DPP on a particular, like a battery? [Speaker 1] Yes, because we've got a fairly abstract data model, right? For a DPP and a conformity credential and so on. And so it's picking a particular product and industry sector, if it's a DPP and particularly picking a particular like conformity scheme, if it's a conformity credential and just testing, can I represent the requirements of this product or this scheme in a UNTP credential or not? [Speaker 2] Okay, so the reason why I ask is that when I first was invited to get involved in CERPAS a few, a couple of months ago, I actually, and obviously like many of us, we get the first introduction to DPPs batteries. And so I did, as is my style, I did a lot of work around understanding if I was to apply this to a particular, to an Australian company, as I happen to be in Australia, is there a practical application or a practical pilot that could be run? And I came across Century Batteries. Are you familiar with that company? So Century Batteries produce quite a wide range of batteries, automotive and lithium ion batteries, but they're no longer, their headquarters is in Queensland, but they're no longer owned by Australian company. They're actually a joint venture between a Japanese company and an Indonesian company. So if you were thinking about, you should contact them, a very interesting company, wide range, and that would be a great test case. [Speaker 1] Yeah, I think we're going to find real industrial companies that want to pilot either because we've got knowledge and connections like that, or mostly through the industry extension piloting, right? So when we kick off the, for example, the Responsible Business Alliance project, their membership are obvious candidates to do pilots, similarly with Australian agriculture and so on. So there's going to be this kind of feedback loop when an industry sector takes UNTP and says, right, I'm extending it for Australian agriculture or the global built environment or whatever it is. That's where we're likely to encounter the majority of actual industrial testers. And we've got to be able to close the loop back with what we learned from those to update UNTP core, right? But that doesn't preclude us finding people like that if you have contacts there and they're interested, happy to plug in with them. [Speaker 4] Adriana, why don't you and I chat about that next week when we catch up and we can build a bit of a plan. Also, I know that Nick Smith, who introduced himself at the beginning, is also interested in collaborating here in Australia on some of those things. So I think there's a group here and there's some other folks that we've been already working with too that we can kind of maybe connect to try and build those out. So happy to work with you on that. [Speaker 1] I'll follow up with emails on these kind of actions of vendors that want to do interrupt, solution providers, sorry, that want to do interrupt testing. People who want to contribute their time to map to a particular industry and conformity schemes. I'll follow up with an email shortly and we'll try and kick that off because that's the key activity over the next couple of months just to get UNTP to a certain, if you like quality and confidence level. Yep. [Speaker 4] The other thing just to add to that, Steve, is we've been kind of building some shortcut tools that we'll be publishing here shortly as well to help people through the mapping exercise so that folks who are not familiar with JSON schema can use a Excel-based mapping tool that then we can help facilitate translating to JSON schema and credentials. So we'll be sort of releasing those in the coming weeks as well. [Speaker 1] And by the way, I also encourage everyone, the mailing list is not just for me to send emails out. Anyone can email to transparency or I forget what that is in the from field. If you want to kick off conversations by email, feel free to use the mailing list, be active on Slack. This is how we get to know each other and support each other through this work, right? So we're at the end of our time. Has anyone got any final statements or questions or comments they want to make before we sign off for Christmas and we see each other in Slack? [Speaker 3] Patrick? Well, talking about Christmas, I think just wish everyone a happy holiday and hope you get to rest well and become refreshed in the new years. That's my final statement. [Speaker 4] Thank you. Patrick, I'll echo that as well. [Speaker 1] All right then. Thanks everyone. If you're available, Phil, I want to have a quick chat with you maybe tomorrow or sometime. [Speaker 5] I'm in the U.S. alone, but U.S. morning tomorrow, I'm completely free. [Speaker 1] Okay. All right. I'll reach out to you. [Speaker 5] Cheers. Great. Thank you. All right. Merry Christmas, everyone. [Speaker 10] Happy holidays. Thank you.