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

Verifiable Claims Charter Comments

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:17:49 -0800
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <56D782AD.5010306@sunshine.net>
On 3/1/16 9:30 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
>    We need the VCTF to really look at the charter and
>    whip it into shape. Grammatical stuff, ideas, whatever. This is
>    the document we're going to be circulating to folks.

VC Working Group Charter Comments:

1. Problem Statement
…”identity fragility”. I’m not sure I understand how this term is used 
here. Perhaps it could be expanded or another term used? If one’s 
identity is ‘fragile’, in the current Web ‘problem’ context, what 
exactly is happening? Is it fragmented? Inaccurate? Untrustworthy? 
(All of those?)

3. Scope
Why no capitals on the first inset paragraph? (Used on the second, 
which is a parallel construction.) I suggest capital ‘A’ for both #1 
and #2, and perhaps a semicolon after the first, ie:

    1.  A data model and syntax(es) for the expression of rich 
verifiable claims;
    2.  A note specifying.…

I find the full text of #2 to be confusing, specifically that the ‘or’ 
operator is not used in the second option. Agreed that implying it 
there is a plausible English-language construction, but I think the 
chance of confusion in the reader is too great. I see no reason to 
leave it out. So I’d suggest at least the following (possibly even 
using capital ‘OR’, though I think that might be overkill, unless your 
audience is all Boolean-skewed):

“2. A note specifying how these data models should be used with 
existing attribute exchange protocols, or a recommendation that 
existing protocols should be modified, or a recommendation that a new 
protocol is required to address the problems stated earlier in this 
document.”

It could even be reflowed to make it more obvious:
2. A note specifying:
  a) how these data models should be used with existing attribute 
exchange protocols, or
  b) a recommendation that existing protocols should be modified, or
  c) a recommendation that a new protocol is required to address the 
problems stated earlier in this document.

Later addition: I see that section 4.2, ‘Verifiable Claims 
Implementation Guidance’, repeats the above and essentially adopts the 
reflowed format, so in the interests of brevity probably only the 
first, non-indented, suggestion is necessary. In fact to avoid 
repetition, perhaps #2 could be reduced to:

“2. A note specifying how these data models should be used with 
existing attribute exchange protocols (as further specified in section 
4.2 ‘Verifiable Claims Implementation Guidance’).”

3.1 Definitions
In the second definition, ‘credential (aka attestation)’:
If I understand correctly, that the final clause, “typically used to 
indicate suitability” refers to the “set of verifiable claims” and not 
to the “university degree”, then the “typically…” clause is ambiguous 
because of lack of punctuation before it.  I think the most direct way 
to deal with this, short of reflowing in different words, would be 
merely to add a semicolon before it, as:

     “A set of verifiable claims that refer to a qualification, 
achievement, personal quality, aspect of an identity such as a name, 
government ID, preferred payment processor, home address, or 
university degree; typically used to indicate suitability.”

4.3
typo error: remove the second period after “software libraries”.

8. Decision Policy
I assume you know the link to section 3.3 doesn’t work.

11.
Links again.

And all those @@@ symbols which I assume are placeholders for something.

Otherwise IMO the document seems concise and clear.

Steven
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2016 00:18:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 3 March 2016 00:18:17 UTC