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

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

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:25:28 -0500
To: John Tibbetts <jtibbetts@imsglobal.org>
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: <56C1FBF8.5030206@digitalbazaar.com>
On 02/15/2016 11:14 AM, John Tibbetts wrote:
> 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.

Thank you! Much appreciated.

> 
> Of course now that I type the sentence ‘credential petitioner’
> doesn’t sound too bad.
> 
> I also think ‘inspector’ might be a possibility.

I like "petitioner" or "inspector".

> 
> 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 CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> 
> 
> 


-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 16:25:55 UTC

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