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

Re: Definition of claim

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:17:26 +0200
Cc: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-Id: <F16301BE-54A7-4F63-A447-4337579A1566@bblfish.net>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

> On 13 Jun 2016, at 02:19, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On 06/12/2016 04:32 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
>> I believe the latest definition of claim in the architecture 
>> document
>> 
>> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/
>> 
>> is fundamentally wrong. It says
>> 
>> Claim A statement made by an entity about a subject. For example: 
>> "Jane is a doctor."
>> 
>> The example is not one claim, but two claims. It claims that the 
>> subject is a doctor and that the subject is called Jane. We should 
>> rewrite this to say
> 
> Hmm, not what I was going for... I was trying to avoid talking about
> subject identifiers by just using "Jane" as the subject identifier.

With a bit of Turtle (N3 actually is going to be more useful in this 
discussion as it allows one to make statements about graphs) this would 
be clear. I think Manu means  the graph

{ :Jane a :Doctor . }

which could for that matter also be

{ :x a :Doctor . }

but not 

{ :x a Doctor ;
     :name "Jane" } .

(Btw. the { } notation makes it much clearer than JSON-LD, RDF/XML
or other serialisation can since those do not have a specific 
syntax for quotation)
     

> 
>> Claim A statement made by an entity about a holder.
> 
> Unfortunately, this isn't accurate. Claims are made about subjects,
> where the subject is the holder in the vast majority of cases. The
> subject may not be the holder (for example, you holding on to a claim
> made by a veterinarian about your pet).
> 
> We could reword to:
> 
> Claim: A statement made by an Issuer about a Subject. For example,
>  "A hospital (Issuer) says that Jane (Subject) is
>   a doctor (the claim)."

Why not just:

 Claim: A statement made by an Issuer

The reason I am asking is because what about when two people marry?

:FriarTuck claims { :jane marriedTo :john . }

Now the subject could be :jane or :john . But does it really matter?
Either could present the claim, but so could a third party too, eg
someone working in a registry could use that claim to write a third
statement  e.g. one about both living at a certain address.

Anyway, just a question.

Henry

> 
> -- 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 Monday, 13 June 2016 06:17:55 UTC

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