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

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

From: Shane McCarron <shane@halindrome.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:32:00 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJdbnOBQ_JY3k3VN0=_Y6OoCUZDL2VQ+5Shniu-EAaySd4J2YA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Tibbetts <john.tibbetts@kinexis.com>
Cc: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
While I sympathize with Steven's position, I am forced to agree with John -
we don't want to start stepping on toes with our terminology.  We are
stepping on enough toes as it is!

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:06 PM, John Tibbetts <john.tibbetts@kinexis.com>
wrote:

> Hi Steven,
>
> I think you’d get a lot of push-back from registrars if you asserted that
> the student is the owner of the student record.  In their view, and this is
> the traditionalist view but the dominant view, the university owns the
> degree certification but is obligated to release it at the wishes of the
> student and further constrained by FERPA.  (Lots google-able about FERPA).
>
> For example, it’s common practice to only release transcripts if the
> student is paid up on their tuition.  That’s not a good indicator that the
> student owns the transcript.
>
> Note however that there is a growing counter-trend driven by
> distance-learning, MOOCs, competency-based education that is building a
> case for a meta-owner of the student record.  But I think it’s important
> that our nomenclature stays out of this controversy.
>
> John
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/15/16 6:54 AM, Dave Longley wrote:
> >> 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".
> >
> > Maybe this too radical to be useful here, but it occurs to me that
> there's a philosophical argument (at least) that the 'holder' is actually
> the 'owner'. As follows:
> >
> > If Jane has a university degree, let's say a BSc, issued by let's say
> MIT, and let's say it was issued ten years ago (just to give a context) --
> >
> > Jane says, in normal human speech with other people:
> > "I have a BSc. It's from MIT."
> >
> > Jane is then the owner of the BSc, in normal, non-specialized human
> understanding. It's her BSc. The fact that it came from MIT is merely an
> attribute of her BSc. In fact, usually she wouldn't even mention it. "I
> have a BSc" would be the more common usage.
> >
> > And in normal human speech, we wouldn't say MIT 'has' or 'owns' Jane's
> BSc. This is logical, because MIT can only issue a BSc if it's further
> accredited by a government, or by an association of universities. So MIT is
> only partially responsible for its power to issue the BSc.
> >
> > But, before this *specific* BSc was issued, it didn't even exist. It was
> issued so that Jane and only Jane could have it. So, in effect, it wouldn't
> be surprising to say she owns it, IMO.
> >
> > I see that there are other ways to interpret this, but it has a major
> advantage of being part of the everyday usage in our society.
> >
> > And if we started from that -- with 'owner' as the central word -- then
> it might make the privacy implications much clearer also. She also owns
> what can be done with it, to at least some distance from herself.
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Steven
> >
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>


-- 
-Shane
Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 19:32:39 UTC

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