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

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

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:43:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1_SgMcspr2THT3Og+kQYOA94Rqs62=M9o5bz+aBUa7eQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>, public-credentials@w3.org
I'm still waiting to hear back about that 1 - 2 pager that helps us
understand their considerations better..

Unless there is a link I've missed?

I don't know how we can make good decisions without understanding the
circumstances and underlying considerations made by key stakeholders who
in-turn, yield such important decision making influenced. I note also, I'm
still not sure if these parties are active contributors or whether they get
involved on a more ad-hoc basis?

I hope that makes sense.  I get the feeling alot of people are putting in
alot of effort and it would be a shame if we missed something that led to a
waste of our time, talent and efforts.

Tim.h.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016, 7:32 PM David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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,
> >
> > I¹d like to second Chaals¹ 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 09:43:45 UTC

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