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 11:15:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+EnjbKEUhjSRQx96-k=E5S26p3tomDUXSgoH7_HcwaZHuT3Qg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>

> On 2/16/16 6:23 AM, Daniel Burnett wrote:
> +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.
> Yes. I think Bearer (or Holder) is potentially more confusing for the cow
> or machine. It would be as if we're attempting to say that the cow or
> machine has some agency or part in the process, which they don't, and this
> might cause an extra step for outsiders trying to understand what the
> referents are.
> In the current Use-cases terminology,
> http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/
> there's a 'holder' defined:
> "An entity that is in control of a particular credential. Typically a
> holder's identity is also the primary subject of the information in a
> credential. A holder is often the entity that initiates the transmission of
> a credential."
> But this seems to leave out the cow and machine situations, or
> tangentially inversely refers to them in the word 'typically'.
> So it seems that the word 'Subject' would be required anyway, in the cow
> and machine situation, even if there's still a 'holder', who 'holds' the
> claim about the cow.
> But then 'subject', if it's already included as a basic defined term,
> could also be used as a single word when the person-who-it's-about is the
> 'subject'. In those cases, which would be a lot of the cases, 'holder'
> wouldn't be required.
> In other words, it looks like a useful change to the existing terminology
> might be to use 'Subject' as the main word, with 'holder' only used as an
> additional category when needed because the claim is about a cow or
> machine.  :-)
> Yes, exactly.  Holder makes more sense as the entity with authority to
release the credential to consumers.

I meant to add, though, that if my comments start us down a cow and machine
rathole at the expense of getting this working for human-based
credentials/claims, then I will happily withdraw those examples, so
consider them merely as food for thought here.

> Steven
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 16:16:21 UTC

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