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

Re: Web Payments IG approves Verifiable Claims to proceed to W3C Management

From: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 10:31:09 +0100
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <38922418-20a1-ea3d-85ad-0fcddde986fa@kent.ac.uk>
Here, Here. Restricting the work to the education sector will not work
anyway, since this sector needs other types of credentials to function
correctly, e.g. financial credentials to pay fees, download journals,
print documents etc. health credentials to visit the university health
centre etc.

regards

David

On 14/07/2016 19:32, Adler, Patrick wrote:
> Hi All, 
> 
> Iąd like to second Chaalsą comment that narrowing the charter to
> educational use cases is a very bad idea and would limit the utility of
> the Verifiable Claims work.  Given that the verifiable claims concepts
> could easily be leveraged in financial, health and other public service
> industries, it would create an un-neccesary silo to limit it to
> educational use only.  Additionally, this would likely cause other efforts
> in the payments space to have to figure out how to proceed without this
> key building block, which could also make other work the W3C is
> undertaking such as commercial, loyalty and discount use cases more
> difficult to standardize.  It is critical that claims be portable across
> industry verticals if standardized, and for that reason I do not support
> narrowing the scope of the charter to a single industries need.
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Pat
> 
> On 7/14/16, 12:37 PM, "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/14/2016 06:59 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 19:31:13 +0200, Manu Sporny
>>> <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We know of the following modification requests to the charter:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Constrain the charter to Education only.
>>>
>>> This strikes me as a very bad idea.
>>
>> There is consensus within the Verifiable Claims Task Force and the
>> Credentials Community Group that this would be a very bad idea.
>>
>> The organizations that have objected to the current charter proposal are
>> the ones that are requesting that the scope is narrowed. I'll also note
>> that these organizations are not active participants in the Verifiable
>> Claims Task Force, Credentials Community Group, and the Web Payments IG.
>>
>>>> 2. Demonstrate that the charter is not competitive to JSON Object
>>>> Signing and Encryption Web Tokens (JOSE JWT).
>>>
>>> Why is this important?
>>
>> There is a mistaken assumption that the Verifiable Claims work is
>> competitive to the JOSE JWT work.
>>
>> The reality is that the Verifiable Claims work provides the option of
>> using JOSE JWT and includes an example in the specification itself
>> (scroll down to Example 4 here):
>>
>> http://opencreds.org/specs/source/claims-data-model/#expressing-entity-cre
>> dentials-in-json
>>
>>>> 1. Determine if we want to constrain the charter to Education
>>>> only.
>>>
>>> At this stage I am opposed to such a constraint. To the extent that
>>> I would strongly consider a formal AC objection to it in a charter
>>> review.
>>
>> Thanks for the heads-up on that Chaals. I'll note that it was the Web
>> Payments Interest Group members that voted to send the charter to W3M
>> for approval and that 61 company group is not largely composed of
>> education companies. I would expect a number of them to have the same
>> reaction that you did if the charter were constrained to addressing
>> education-only use cases.
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> -- 
>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern
>> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
>>
> 
> 
> 
> This e-mail message, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or proprietary information.  If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 16 July 2016 09:31:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:30 UTC