W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Mutual Accreditation

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:44:20 +0200
Message-ID: <55229BC4.5000007@wwelves.org>
To: Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 04/06/2015 04:03 PM, Nate Otto wrote:
> elf,
> 
> In this case, would Manu want to endorse the claim Accreditrust is making
> about him, or would there be a different claim that he needs to mange about
> the company?
Hi Nate,

Did you have chance to read my email "Credential or just a Statement?".
IMO it will also come very relevant for *endorsement*
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2015Mar/0007.html

From my perspective claim(statement) stays exactly the same here, it
talks about certain relationship between Accreditrust and Manu. In
*hosted* version, enough that both publish such statements in their
Identity profiles. But they could as well create signed credential to
provide alternative verification path.

It comes out of this thread, I try to mention creating in(re)verse
properties in vocabulary as considered bad practice. An show how JSON-LD
@reverse comes helpful. Please don't worry if you find thread below
confusing.
https://github.com/hackers4peace/plp-docs/issues/12#issuecomment-90017963

Cheers!



> 
> Nate
> 
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015, 3:13 AM ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> During online conversation with friends we came across use case which
>> requires mutual accreditation. For example https://schema.org/Role which
>> I mentioned earlier in Fwd emaoil. In particular:
>>
>> https://www.accreditrust.com/about/our-team
>>
>> accreditrust.com can issue credential for Manu that he has role "Chief
>> Technologist"
>>
>> At the same time Manu may want to issue equivalent credential to
>> accreditrust.com, otherwise any company can make such claims about him.
>>
>> After gathering feedback I would like to add this (or equivalent) use
>> case to our Use Cases document.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>>
> 



Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 14:44:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:23 UTC