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

Re: Verifiable Claims Working Group Proposal

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:23:24 -0400
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <5757819C.90608@digitalbazaar.com>
On 06/07/2016 12:43 AM, Steven Rowat wrote:
> On 6/6/16 7:01 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> You can feel free to review these documents now for the July 1st
>> Web Payments IG face-to-face meeting as they're more or less
>> content complete. These documents are:
>> 
>> The Verifiable Claims Working Group Draft Charter: 
>> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/
> 
> +1. A period missing in the preamble to 3 Scope at the second
> iteration of "but is not required for the Working Group to be
> successful "

Fixed.

https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/2c266b1eadcdc73f823c86635f15d3c5be6a8885#diff-6225337de7b33ec38ef5910a8be616b0

> First, it seemed odd to have the "self-sovereign..." paragraph
> sitting on its own as the first text. I believe it would be best to
> move it into section 1 "Proposed Verifiable Claims Architecture
> Goals", either before or after the list of four goals, and to segue
> it. For instance, if put after, it could be introduced something
> like: " These goals together have been called *self-sovereign*..."
> etc.

Hmm, those goals don't summarize what self-sovereign means. This blog
post elaborates more on the self-sovereign terminology:

http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2016/04/the-path-to-self-soverereign-identity.html

The intro has been reworded so the definition isn't floating out there
like it was before. We want to introduce people to the term before we
use it in the doc, imho. Let me know what you think about the change.

> Then, in section 4, I was thrown by the copy-paste of the different 
> listed items in the first three, Issuers, Repositories, and
> Inspectors, and by the wording in those three, which seemed overly
> business-buzzword and mushy-vague.
> 
> In contrast, the Holders section caught my attention: snappy,
> direct, easy to understand, well-worded.
> 
> Since, to my mind, the Holders are the main actors (if no Holders,
> then no Claims, and nobody does anything), the obvious solution is to
> put Holders first, so that list is read first. Then pare down the
> other three so whatever advantage is unique to each one is put at the
> top of its list, with the repeated ones being put at the end. And, in
> my opinion, the repeated ones shouldn't be repeated verbatim, I
> repeat. :-)

Based on your suggestions, I have:

1. Added a new section outlining benefits to all stakeholders.
2. Moved Holders section up
3. Reworded items that had identical language between different actors
4. Moved items unique to each actor to the top of the list.

https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/892c6b838811a05788a6bb223e51d4e9777be2df#diff-6225337de7b33ec38ef5910a8be616b0

Let me know if this works for you, Steven.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
JSON-LD Best Practice: Context Caching
https://manu.sporny.org/2016/json-ld-context-caching/
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 02:23:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:29 UTC