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

Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: Stone, Matt <matt.stone@pearson.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:35:07 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+w1=RTXD8Wm1EN4Tak0dNG+XcOA9Jds7QAdY9VijjdJ8gSXWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
may be tricky to find a noun that represents a role of a thing that's
asking, demanding, verifying which wasn't at it's primary root a 'person'

how about
- interrogator
- examiner
- inquirer

i sort of like the idea of inquiry
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inquiry:

   1.

   1:  examination into facts or principles
   <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principle> :  research
   <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research>
   2.

   2:  a request for information
   3.

   3:  a systematic
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/systematic> investigation
   often of a matter of public interest



=====
Matt Stone
501-291-1599


On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> On 3/29/16 11:15 AM, Stone, Matt wrote:
>
>> "acceptor" pre-supposes a positive outcome, an inspector may accept or
>> deny the claim - even if it's verified as authentic. -- I'm not crazy
>> about "inspector" for the reasons you suggested above.
>>
>> Maybe we should be focused on the "ask" - this role is that of the
>> "requester" , ie. some interested party has requested proof of
>> {status/attribute}. Consult the thesaurus for "one who asks" :)
>>
>
> Agreed. But it's stronger than ask, in all cases that would interest us.
> It's required.
>
> So...maybe:
>
> Credential Requirer
>
> ?
>
> I don't remember what language problem we're trying to solve was and
>> why we are moving away from the concept of the "consumer" role.  Is
>> there concern that the consumer might be confused with the holder of
>> the credential?
>>
>
> Without referring to the past threads where it was discussed, I believe
> several people thought this.
>
> For instance, here's Harper-Collins, and they only give two meanings for
> the noun 'consumer':
>    "1.  a person who acquires goods and services for his or her own
> personal needs
>    "2.  a person or thing that consumes"
>
> Definition '1.' only refers to a 'person' -- not an entity or a thing. And
> this is so widespread a use today -- we are all 'consumers', it's a
> 'consumer society', businesses are producing goods for the 'the consumer',
> --that IMO it's unavoidably the first thing that will come up in the mind
> of anyone who encounters it.
>
> And since it's linked in this way to a 'person' rather than an entity or
> an organization, it's also likely to be confused with the 'holder'.
>
> Steven
>
>
>
>
>> dave, can you remind me why we opened this thread?
>>
>> -stone
>>
>>
>> =====
>> Matt Stone
>> 501-291-1599
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Steven Rowat
>> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Oops. Didn't finish a thought in previous post:
>>     "  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 [most computer
>>     users],"
>>
>>     or something. Got confused even thinking about 'inspector'. ;-)
>>
>>     Steven
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 19:36:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 29 March 2016 19:36:00 UTC