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

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

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:33:17 -0800
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <56C35D5D.7010303@sunshine.net>
On 2/16/16 8:15 AM, Daniel Burnett wrote:
> 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.

I can appreciate this concern, but instead, that brought up in my mind 
another set of use cases that need the Subject and Holder both, and 
involve human people at both positions.

I mean the ones like 'Attorney for Healthcare' or 'Attorney for 
Finances', where a person is, say, physically incapable and another 
person gets legal authority. All jurisdictions that I know of have 
these cases. And maybe this applies also to ones for prisoners, or 
inmates of mental institutions (involuntary incarcerations), though 
I'm less familiar with those.

In the 'Attorney' ones at least there'll be a certificate/claim that 
enables the 'Holder' to have a power over, and for, the needs of the 
'Subject'. Both are humans.

The 'Subject' is still the central concern, but the 'Holder' is 
completely necessary and in this configuration it seems appropriate to 
have a major term to refer to that position, rather than a 
sub-attribute, since both are necessary, both are human, and have more 
or less equal importance in the system.

Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 17:33:47 UTC

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