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

Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:16:21 -0700
To: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56FAB865.50103@sunshine.net>
On 3/29/16 9:00 AM, Dave Longley wrote:
> On 03/29/2016 10:37 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> 4. Vocabulary changes - Issuer, Repository, Inspector
>
> Here are some alternative names for what is presently called "consumer":
>
> inspector
> authenticator
> verifier
> approver
> assessor
> accepter
> evaluator
> admitter
> inquirer
>
> Thoughts?

accepter +1
inspector +.5

My reaction to this list revolves around the potential confusion 
between the "Issuer" and the others. Someone new to the terminology 
could, I think, mistake most of the others for the entity that 
originally creates the Credential:

 > authenticator
 > verifier
 > approver
 > assessor
 > evaluator
 > admitter

In contrast, to me 'accepter' is clearly about agreeing to take an 
object/document that already exists, whereas the others might involve 
a process of creation of a document (ie, the issuer).

For instance, see Harper-Collins dictionary, for 'accept', first two 
meanings:
"1 to take or receive (something offered)
"2 to give an affirmative reply to"

Whereas, 'authenticate' for instance gives in HC:
"1 to establish as genuine or valid
"2 to give authority or legal validity to"
IMO both of these are meanings are ambiguous in that they could refer 
to the issuer. And especially the second one is more in line with the 
issuer.

I haven't looked up all the others but IMO they'd be closer to 
'authenticate' also, in that they could involve the original issuing.

HC for 'inspect' seems good also in the same respect as 'accepter':
"1 to examine closely, esp for faults or errors
"2 to scrutinize officially (a document, military personnel on 
ceremonial parade, etc)"
Which implies that there already is 'something' that we're examining; 
we're not creating it on the fly.

So between accepter and inspector, it's a tossup for me, though I 
slightly prefer accepter.
   a) inspector has much baggage in current UI software. It seems to 
me that everybody decided to put an 'Inspector' into their UI a few 
years ago. I think that's a negative. Confusion of multiple 
'inspector' roles already residing in the brains of
   b) on the other hand, 'inspector' implies strongly that the 
'inspector' must examine the document, and has an active role, which I 
suppose is true. An accepter implies more passivity.

But even 'b)' could be a reason for prefering 'accepter', because that 
activeness of the 'inspector' might still cause confusion with the 
'issuer'.

my 2c this morning....

Steven

>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:16:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:16:46 UTC