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

Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:37:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPk0ugmLx6wLz1sz3gDUPY8=Vd74mTOzMX08ni6JPZwUNGwFrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
I lean toward continuing to use "recipient" as the entity that has been
awarded a credential. "Earner" implies that they have done something to
deserve it, which may not be the case; "holder" is ambiguous because as
Matt says, it may make sense to "hold" credentials on behalf of their true

Matt Stone Wrote:
> 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) :)

*Nate Otto*
*Director, Badge Alliance*
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 17:38:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 17:38:54 UTC