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

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

From: Daniel Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:23:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+Enjb+yE5oT71YTNUTWzGo5iOLPJxKmH_pbo5Jt5KUFUqhqKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

>
>  > B declares a credential. B is a Declarer.
>
>>
>>
> To add to my own post, another option here is:
>
> B declares a credential about A. So:
>
> B is a Declarer.
> A is the Subject.
>
> A takes the credential to C. C is an Acceptor of the credential.
>>
>
> Thus Declarer, Subject, Acceptor.
>
> An advantage of this would be not having '-or' or '-er' endings on all
> three, which might make it easier to parse, understand, and remember the
> documents and process.
>
> The Subject, which is what it's all about, is the one that stands out as
> different, and is central to the process.


+1 for Subject.  Not only does it work well when humans are the Subject, it
works also when non-humans are.  For example, in a claim that no
antibiotics were found in the cow just before it was killed for meat, the
cow is the Subject of the claim.  Or in a claim that a car was in exactly
two accidents in the state of California, the car is the Subject.  It has
the advantage of not implying whether the Subject is the initiator of the
claim or whether the claim was made about the Subject independent of any
action on the Subject's part.

>
>
> Steven
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 14:24:22 UTC

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