RE: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

We call the actor about whom the claim is made an “earner” as they earned the claim in some fashion  This may not work for all uses descriptively but it has a positive sound to it.  We use “consumer” for the one who uses an earner’s claim so plus one there.  The source of the evidence for the claim is from the “issuer” of the claim (this is where I really miss being able to say credential).  I see verification as a process with no single owner in all or even most cases.  Although we normally think of the issuer as having a big role, verification of the match between the earner and the evidence of the claim as to identity and data integrity I assume will be machine work.  The issue is responsible for maintenance of the evidence as to currency, reliability, integrity, and the applicability of any inferences the issuer chooses to warranty arising from the evidence.



From: Stone, Matt [mailto:matt.stone@pearson.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:15 AM
To: Kerri Lemoie
Cc: public-credentials@w3.org; Steven Rowat; Jim Goodell
Subject: Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

+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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:501-291-1599>






________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________