Update "Out of Scope" section.

[BigBlueHat]

It seems pretty out of date now as the things mentioned have been (or are being) handled by other WGs currently.

[pchampin]

Good catch :)
But then I'm a bit at loss on what to include in the "out-of-scope" section... Or is it appropriate to remove the out-of-scope section completely?

[TallTed]

Out-of-scope is stuff that seems like it belongs with planned outputs, but is expected to require too much time, energy, other resources (e.g., there are too many unanswered questions to be hammered out). If there is nothing like that, then the out-of-scope section can be omitted.

Currently listed things that "have been (or are being) handled by other WGs" should have their WGs listed in liaision/coordination sections, just in case we run into something that we think they should adjust (or maybe they can tell us how to tweak ours) to make our output specs easier or even possible.

[BigBlueHat]

We currently list RDF Dataset Normalization and Linked Data Signatures.

We can leave RDF Dataset Normalization (as being handled by the RDF Dataset Canonicalization and Hash Working Group), but should update the Linked Data Signatures which is now handled in the Data Integrity spec: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/

Anyone know of any other changes to this section?

[pchampin]

We can leave RDF Dataset Normalization (as being handled by the RDF Dataset Canonicalization and Hash Working Group), but should update the Linked Data Signatures which is now handled in the Data Integrity spec: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/

Both corresponding WGs (RCH and VC) are already listed in the 'Coordination' section, so I believe that we are covered here.

I agree with @TallTed's characterization of what should be in this section ("stuff that seems like it belongs with planned outputs, but is expected to require too much time, energy, other resources"), but I can't think of anything that marches this description. It can be me lacking imagination, though...