W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2016

Re: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-02-09

From: John Tibbetts <jtibbetts@imsglobal.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 08:14:43 -0800
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@halindrome.com>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-Id: <03A5A84F-7A65-4185-A095-453CB18C9E97@imsglobal.org>
To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Hi all,

I’ve sent an email to a friend who’s a registrar in a large eastern university and active in the national association of registrars.  I’ve asked her if there’s a term-of-art for the role of credential petitioner.  I think there’s a good chance she’s not in today but I’ll forward her response to the list.

Of course now that I type the sentence ‘credential petitioner’ doesn’t sound too bad.

I also think ‘inspector’ might be a possibility.

But of course if there’s an existing term out there we should give that additional weight.

John Tibbetts
Chief Product Architect
IMS Global Consortium

> On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:54 AM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> On 02/15/2016 08:51 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> Hmm.  But a "consumer" might not be the one doing the verification.  A
>> consumer is the one that needs the claim to be true (presumably).
> That's my concern as well. We could do something new with the entire
> terminology like "issuing party", "holding party",
> "storage/aggregator/curator/agent party", "interested party", where
> "interested party" takes over for "consumer".
> The "consumer" is the party that needs trust in the credential holder in
> order for it to do something. They are a "relying party", an "interested
> party", and sometimes a "service provider" (but not always). They are
> the party that wants to know (and be able to trust) something about
> another entity (for some reason). I don't know if any of that helps
> anyone think of a better name.
>> Requestor is more accurate in the case where we are talking about the
>> entity that is asking the holder for the claim.
> Unfortunately, "requestor" or "recipient" can be confused with the
> "holder" because the holder must request a credential be issued to them
> from the issuer.
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie
>> <adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote:
>>    Verifier seems appropriate given that these are "verifiable" claims
>>    On 15 February 2016 at 00:59, Steven Rowat
>>    <steven_rowat@sunshine.net <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>> wrote:
>>        On 2/14/16 1:44 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>            I'm happy with 'evaluators', but wonder what our colleagues
>>            in the
>>            education industry think? ...[snip]
>>            Credential/Claim Requestor and Credential/Claim Verifier
>>            could also work?
>>        IMO any of Requestor, Verifier, or Evaluator would be preferable
>>        to Consumer.
>>        Except, Requestor could be confused with 'holder', the
>>        person/entity asking for the original issuing, since at the
>>        start they are 'requesting' that a credential be issued for them
>>        -- which they then take elsewhere to be Evaluated or Verified
>>        (or, currently, Consumed).
>>        But as you noted, with multiple possible systems in play --
>>        finance, education, payments, government -- it's going to be
>>        hard not to cause at least some confusion somewhere.
>>        Steven
>> -- 
>> -Shane
> -- 
> Dave Longley
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 16:15:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:27 UTC