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

Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:01:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJdbnOA2Pd_p3Q-SYDe3nJapxJWCGbuwLrsbz-obdAYo4Z7TxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>
Cc: "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, "Varn, Richard J" <rvarn@ets.org>, "Stone, Matt" <matt.stone@pearson.com>, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com>, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
Note that the holder may NOT be the owner.  Consider, for example, if I
were to assist my elderly parents by holding their credentials for them to
assist with banking or medical issues (for example).  But I am not the
subject nor am I the owner.

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>
wrote:

> Working on shifting my thinking from “credential” to “claim” and not all
> claims are earned. Thinking that “holder” isn’t bad but may be a little
> vague. How about “owner”. We do own our claims, right?
>
> Not to go off topic too far but something to consider as part of this
> thread: Richard said something interesting about the issuer being
> responsible for maintaining the evidence. I’d argue this isn’t necessarily
> always true even though it has been true in many cases. This could change.
> It may be that the issuer provides the evidence initially but that the
> evidence could be maintained and added to by the earner (holder or owner).
> It could just be that the issuer approves evidence or that an endorser
> provides and maintains evidence.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kerri
>
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
> wrote:
>
> +1 for "Holder" - Eric said, "I hold my credentials in my wallet". ;-)
> <https://mail.google.com/>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On 03/30/2016 10:34 AM, Varn, Richard J wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> It does have a nice positive ring to it for certain scenarios. However,
>> it's true that it doesn't work for many cases, such as place of birth,
>> age, citizenship, address, email, and so on (though I suppose you could
>> argue that some of those may be "earned" in some sense!). I think
>> "holder" is working for that actor for most people in the more generic
>> case. But others can correct me if they feel differently.
>>
>> 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 think we'll be able to say a credential is a set of verifiable claims.
>> It's the container for claims.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Longley
>> CTO
>> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> http://digitalbazaar.com
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 16:02:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 16:02:47 UTC