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

I am okay with Subject too.  And I agree with Longley that holder might
continue to be necessary.  But I would be interested in updating a couple
of flows using this term to see how it pans out.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 02/16/2016 09:23 AM, Daniel Burnett wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net
> > <mailto: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.
>
> I'm also +1 for Subject (at DB we've actually debated suggesting that
> term for some time now). The "subject of the claim" is very clear to me,
> but the push back on "subject" has been that it seems like it requires a
> more technical view than "holder" does. I don't know if that's true.
> Another thing to point out is that we may actually want the "holder"
> terminology *and* the "subject" terminology.
>
> In the CG work, we've modeled an "identity credential" as having its own
> properties, only one of which is the actual "claim" being made. The
> other properties include things like issuer, issue date, and so on. The
> "subject of the claim" (the object pointed to by the claim property in
> the model) is fitting here. However, we also want to be able to talk
> about the "holder" of that credential. That may not be the same entity
> as the subject; certainly it is not in the case of an object with no
> agency such as an inanimate food product.
>
>
> --
> Dave Longley
> CTO
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>
>


-- 
-Shane