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

Request for terminology input - consumer/inspector/TBD Credential

From: Eric Korb <eric.korb@truecred.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 20:10:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMX+RnCzz5Ufgh-yF40hbk9aU4xuTGKN2g3saR0QM-X-bUJPZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
I'm  in favor of "Holder" because it implies to me "possession of
something."  For example: I hold my credentials in my wallet.

I'm not in favor of "Presenter", because it can imply that a 3rd party is
offering something on behalf of someone else.  For example, "The hospital
presented my credential to the compliance officer."

With respect to "Recipient" or "Receiver"; I believe they "work", if we
have "Holder" in our vocab.  Otherwise, I've found that  in my
conversations with partners and clients that they get confused as to
whether the "Recipient" is the 3rd party or to whom the credential was
issued to.(i.e.,.the entity making the claim).  That said, I believe
"Consumer" works across the ecosystem.  I think of it as "digesting" the
information (metadata).

Sure, Consumer can be confusing with consumers in ecommerce, but IMHO the
action is the same.  We consume bread, meat, poultry and other goods.  For
me, "The consumer evaluates the credential, and takes appropriate action."

With respect to the TBD Credential.  "Digital Credential" seems to work
across ecosystem.  Web Credential seems a bit constrained, although I agree
we do need the Web at some point to evaluate and verify them.  However, it
could be possible to read and verify a Digital Credential off-line if the
public key was downloaded and stored off-line with the Digital Credential's
meta-data.

Regards,

Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TrueCred™ | Digital Credential Trust™
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Eric R. Korb | Chief Executive Officer | Warren, New Jersey*


On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 at 03:15 David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Joe wrote:
>> > Also, here's the current draft of the upcoming white paper on "identity"
>> > and "correlation".  It's not complete, but you can get a bit more detail
>> > on the argument and a few examples of what we mean.
>> >
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nxo7jXrfg0s5nAXS4ue0uERm6aAAUF39HczgwygJLFk/edit?usp=sharing
>> >
>> > Again, I realize it might be too late to shift that language, but if we
>> > can, I think it would significantly improve the clarity and simplicity
>> > of the documents.
>>
>> Hi Joe
>>
>> I have just commented on your whitepaper, making the remark that I think
>> you are wrongly using the term 'identity' when you should be using the
>> term 'identification'. It is identification that occurs when correlation
>> takes place.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> David
>>
>> wouldn't it be validation?
>
> unless your talking about the identification of the instrument.  It's very
> difficult to do digital identification of a human remotely.   human
> controlled root idetnfiers / AUTH isn't really supported atm.  not without
> a particular institutional provider.
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2016 00:12:18 UTC

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