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

Re: An educational use case from the POV of the issuer...

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:36:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1kFsOzLOyEibwxaNsCn40n9+o98FXAd7hVm6BBEZ70ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Tibbetts <john.tibbetts@kinexis.com>
Cc: Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 at 01:12 John Tibbetts <john.tibbetts@kinexis.com>

> Thanks for the suggestion Tim,
> Doing my best ;)

> However I don’t think that’s what a ‘use case’ is.  A use case is a bare
> bones user experience.  In the style of use case that our current use case
> document follows (and also that we follow at Vitalsource) a bogus user is
> specifically named—and if Shane’s writing the use case with a clever name.
> user-story is what was described to me by others who have more
experience...  My concern is that by exacting to the concept of 'use-case'
the benefits of 'linked-data' vs. 'relational databases' will be less
clear, therefore undermining the concepts embodied within, through a
fundamental design-phase that proceeds us.

> I think what you’re talking about is a design sketch and that is what
> we’re specifically enjoined *not* to do in this document.ok.
> (And even if we were I still don’t know enough about the
> behind-the-curtain machinery that we’re heading for).

um.   ok.  well. i think the list is a baseline.  if documented somewhere
it should support provenance at least to the highly motivated.

Beyond that,

the power of linked-data is well established via various means in utility
today. For specifications work to specify by way of an outdated model,
would seemingly, and somewhat naturally, create preferential circumstances
for participants who've established business models based upon any-such
previous iterative approaches rather than in the benefit of science / the

This is somewhat similar to the concept of diminishing the means for a
medical cure, through process, as to support the sale of treatment for a
disease that may be otherwise curable and/or treated in a manner that
precludes a higher treatment-lifespan ARPU (average revenue per user).

I'm therefore considering how to nominate a use-case that highlights the
concept of one signed document located on one server, referencing another,
multiplied; and in-turn, the capacity for a human to identify they're, for
example, have a drivers license, without having to specify their DOB.  (ie:
assumption is they're over a certain age, et.al).

part of this consideration is of course the concept that a multitude of
issuers participate in the delivery of a 'bundled' claim.

I'm not sure how best to communicate this in a format that will be accepted
by the 'consumers' of these 'credentials'.

So, thinking about it laterally...

I make a claim that i invented something.  I have it initially documented,
then 'post' it and have it certified to a date-stamp by the local post

i then refine the idea overtime, and have that dated by the same provider.

I then go and do my patent search process, where i find additional patents
which i need to reference and consider what i invented vs. what was
invented by others.

The end result needs to be lodged to my IP lawyer, who wants something akin
to a 'inventors supervisor' which is in-turn made 'bot', due to creds.

more work is done, et.al.

In-Turn, a 'package' is formed as to identify the moment in which a
'priority date' may be considered by a court, who in-turn may make a
decision that says either the 'actor' has been working in the shed on a
dream that destroys the means for their kids to have a happy and
well-supported life, or that his crazy because its all been done before and
he should have known that...

ideology plays a part in this linked-data world.

I'm not sure what the answer is, yet, i'm concerned that the responses look
very historical in nature.

> Cheers,
> John
> :)

Tim .H.

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> if at all possible,
> I'd like to see it broken down into a group of creds that represent both a
> package of verifiable claims, in addition to a subset or indeed an element
> of a broader claim capable by the entity seeking to make a claim in a
> privacy preserving manner that still supports validation of the necessary
> particulars (and identification of those who want more, beyond reasonable
> purposes)..
> Tim.
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 at 00:41 Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com> wrote:
>> +1
>> On Mar 10, 2016 9:03 PM, "John Tibbetts" <john.tibbetts@kinexis.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I’ve slightly reworked a use case I turned in earlier that is a tad more
>>> in line with Shane’s Use Case style.  Feel free to use it if you find it
>>> helpful or modify it to suit your needs.
>>> *Joleen is the registrar of Mega University and, by virtue of her
>>> office, is responsible for the integrity, accuracy, and security of
>>> academic records.  Joleen has been a pioneering registrar in advocating an
>>> 'extended transcript' that includes not only the standard set of course
>>> grades but also adds supplementary information on learner competencies.
>>> These might include work experiences and non-educational but marketable
>>> skills. Upon the request of her students Joleen issues digital credentials
>>> that encapsulates an extended transcript.*
>>> Cheers,
>>> John
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 14:37:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 11 March 2016 14:37:04 UTC