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: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:10:30 -0500
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <56C35806.40605@digitalbazaar.com>
On 02/16/2016 10:57 AM, Steven Rowat wrote:
> 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'.

The latter is exactly what we were going for. We were trying to cover
that situation without bringing it to the forefront.

> 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.  :-)

I think I'd be ok with that. I'd like to see where the consensus seems
to be.

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 17:10:58 UTC

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