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 13:37:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+w1=RQzKtPzagTYc+nXaGh9XqpDEc6AC90S+=nROiFXWi0d-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
Cc: Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com>, "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>, "Varn, Richard J" <rvarn@ets.org>, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Owner is definitely bad. -- in our internal vocabulary, the Owner is the
governing body that defines the requires and issues the certificate.
Granted it's over 15yo internal terminology, but the
{subject/holder/earner/recipient} definitely isn't the owner, since many of
these credentials can be revoked and nullified by a "higher power".

-stone


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


On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
wrote:

> I believe the "owner" may conflicts with the signature graphs of a signed
> credential.  I still hold that "holder" is the best fit.  Even in a
> guardian situation, they are "holder" of the credential for the minor.
>
> Eric
> On Mar 30, 2016 12:49 PM, "Stone, Matt" <matt.stone@pearson.com> 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) :)
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> -stone
>>
>>
>> =====
>> Matt Stone
>> 501-291-1599
>>
>>
>> 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 19:38:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 19:38:33 UTC