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

Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: Stone, Matt <matt.stone@pearson.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:15:27 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+w1=RSBa8AEy03jjg74TejRXOhCPwKkLfYJgad9N-QVuHs0Lw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>
Cc: "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com>
+1 to keep Consumer unless we get "wow'ed" by another term.  That 4th actor
uses or consumes the results of the verification request in order to make
their decision about the "subject's" fitness


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


On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>
wrote:

> I agree with Jim. I also think that an actor label helps to make a
> technology relatable and consume (consumer) is an apt enough term that if
> defined & supported well works if it’s described as “uses credential” . It
> implies that the data is being used however the user (consumer) intends to
> use it and does not add any implications on how the data should be used.
>
>
> Kerri
>
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It is difficult (sometimes impossible) to find a label that works for
> everyone and every use, in this case for an actor with multiple roles
> (needs credential, earns credential, receives credential, uses credential
> for x, y, and z). Better to find a label for the actor that works "well
> enough" (with no strong objections); then clearly define, in the context of
> verifiable claims, all that label means about a person's role in the
> ecosystem. A two or three sentence definition can remove ambiguity of a
> single word label.
>
> -Jim
>
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 1:25 AM, Stone, Matt <matt.stone@pearson.com>
> wrote:
>
> Since our fundamental topic is a "verifiable claim", maybe
> "verifier" fits.
>
> I'm afraid we're overthinking the nuance and subtext to the point that no
> one  will get it when we eventually roll it out.  I respect that language
> has power but also know than few others will think as deeply as we do on
> the topic.  If it's overworked, we'll spend the next 5yrs saying things
> like "Think about it like this..."
>
> -stone
>
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/16 9:42 PM, Dave Longley wrote:
>>
>>> So, I believe we need a term that indicates that someone is in need of
>>> something (ie: a credential) in order to proceed with some action.
>>>
>>
>> demander
>> requirer
>> needer
>> necessitator
>> requisitioner
>> caller
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> =====
> Matt Stone
> 501-291-1599
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 14:15:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 14:15:54 UTC