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 10:49:16 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+w1=RRWtcAb9yidFS7rgrVQfXqFc-Y2YWKuSVV_cycJuNzvkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Cc: Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>, "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, "Varn, Richard J" <rvarn@ets.org>, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com>, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
In previous discussions we considered "subject" as a term for the entity
about whom the claim is asserted.  In many cases the subject is both the
"earner" and the "holder". I loved the example (dave or shane?) used of "I
have my dog's rabies license" in that case, I'm the "holder" and my dog is
the "subject" or "earner" (i think we could argue he earned it) :)

The case of a Power of Attorney may be another example where the holder <>
subject.  In the power of atty case, the Holder has permission to act on
behalf of the Subject - particularly relevant in fianance
(open/close/manage bank accounts) and health care (liviing will).


Matt Stone

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:

> 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 16:49:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 16:49:47 UTC