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

Re: Review of Group Charter - Editors Draft

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:24:10 -0700
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <56E63CEA.6020303@sunshine.net>
On 3/13/16 7:46 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/vcwg-draft.html
>   * There is no portable and interoperable standard capable of
>     expressing and transmitting...

I have no trouble with adding 'portable and' there, but I don't see 
that it's strictly necessary; IMO it's already implied by problem 
statement 2 "...users can't easily change their service provider", and 
made explicit in goal 2: "to ensure that users can move their 
verifiable claims from one service provider to another".

But maybe you're right: since portability is a key reason why 
Verifiable Claims are being developed as a standard, it probably 
wouldn't hurt to put it there overtly.

> RE: 5.2 Other W3C Groups
> I do not see where LDP or RWW or related works are listed here.  Nor
> do i see ODRL: https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL21 as was discussed in
> 2014:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014Sep/0023.html

If it's within the scope of Verifiable Claims to make use of policy 
and intentions standards, so they can be set by the claims holder 
and/or issuer (or other claims user), then agreed ODRL should be 
listed since it's already in use and has recently entered a formal W3C 
process for standardization. It might be a logical candidate to 
plug-in as an extension for e-contracts.

And based on the current scope statement, it looks like it would fall 
"3. Scope:...

"2. a note specifying how these data models should be used with 
existing attribute exchange protocols, 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. "

Though, perhaps this Scope ("existing attribute exchange protocols") 
is only meant to refer narrowly to the exchange protocols required for 
the 'claims' themselves, and not  meta-data about the claims, which 
ODRL might arguably be.

But perhaps that's too semantic. The meta-data intentions and 
restrictions concerning the claim, versus the claim itself, will be 
hard to distinguish from one another in practice, perhaps.

In other words...it seems to me that the holder's or issuer's (or any 
other user's) decisions about how a claim can be used, as long as it's 
viable within local law, should fall within "existing attribute 
exchange protocols", and since ODRL has been developed specifically to 
deal with this in a web-friendly and machine- and human-readable way, 
it seems to fall within this scope. And hence would be good to mention 
in the dependencies/liaisons.

Steven Rowat
Received on Monday, 14 March 2016 04:24:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 14 March 2016 04:24:43 UTC