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

Re: Verifiable Claims Terminology - votes are in

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:59:22 -0700
To: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2d8d1793-3ac7-9cff-01af-b0774b22d5df@dcrocker.net>

> The bad thing about voting is that sometimes the outcome of the votes
> are a bit wonky.
>
> In this case, the group decided on Entity Credential and Identity Profile.
>
>>From an editorial (and marketing) standpoint, these choices are strange.
>
> We should have picked either:


Not meant as a criticism, but merely wanting to exploit a possible 
teachable moment:

This is why survey methodology is so difficult.  Small differences in 
wording or form can produce vastly different results.

So too, here:  presenting each of the two choices independetly, at 
different times and possibly without any clear linkage to other choices, 
means that the people who do the voting will tend to focus only on the 
narrow choices of the moment and, worse, tend to apply ephemeral criteria.

So, I suspect that presenting the choices as:

1. Entity Credential and Entity Profile
2. Identity Credential and Identity Profile
3. Entity Credential and Identity Profile
4. Entity Credential and Identity Profile

would have produced a different outcome, on the theory that people would 
have seen the benefit of consistency.

d/

ps. FWIW, I can imagine some models for credential and profile that 
would actually make it appropriate to use identity for one and entity 
for the other...


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 13:00:13 UTC

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