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

Re: Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2015-08-04

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 11:25:38 -0700
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <55C103A2.8050609@sunshine.net>
On 8/4/15 9:26 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
> Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/vision/
...>    don't see that coming in over the next week we'll ask people to
>    take actions to do it.

Vision statement (and Terminology) seems excellent --well written, 
clear, concise, IMO, except in Terminology:

A. "Credential consumer" seems awkward. The word "consumer" has much 
social baggage at the moment. "Credential User"? Possibly too general 
and could be confused with 'service'...

I think "Credential requestor" would get around these issues. More 
specific, less baggage.

B. Why does "issuer" not have "credentials" in front of it the same 
way "credential consumer [requestor]" and "credential service" do?

I suggest "credential issuer" -- unless the "issuer" also issues 
things other than credentials.

Either that, or remove "credential" from before the other two, and 
make them just "service" and "requestor" (or "consumer").

C. On first reading, the glossary definition for "Entity" puzzled me. 
It's currently:

"A thing with distinct and independent existence such as a person, 
organization, or instance of a software program."

If a software program is an entity, then why isn't a book, or a movie? 
In other words, you're saying that certain collections of bits 
(digital files) can be entities, but not others? So you're 
distinguishing executable files from non-executable files? And 
specifically, executable files whose execution is directly related to 
the credentials system in some way? (Or is any game, or word 
processing program, an entity?)

I think some clarification of this is necessary.

D. Related to the problem in C: by the end of reading the Terminology, 
I'd become slightly disoriented about several terms -- how they apply 
to living beings as opposed to non-living beings, and a vague feeling 
that I may have entered an infinite loop in attempting to follow the 
connections between them.

Then on reading the Terminology again: apart from my concerns listed 
above, most terms are clear to me, but perhaps something in the 
relation between 'creator', 'recipient', and 'entity' needs to be 
clarified? Is a given single person possibly all three of these at 
once?  If so, "creator" and "recipient" being the same person seems 
awkward.

Though if I create something I suppose I'm the recipient of it.

Could be a nice loop to get into, actually, now that I think about it. 
Think about it. Think about it. ;-)

Steven Rowat
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2015 18:26:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:24 UTC