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

Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:23:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMX+RnCT=tyYebg7B8-EAFhTp9=7HAO++BDr+K80FQo2dq6-dw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Varn, Richard J" <rvarn@ets.org>
Cc: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
I'm still on board for "consumer" - if you are viewing, processing, loading
in, making a decision upon, etc. of a credential,  your are _consuming_ it
in one way or another.  The consumer is a 3rd party - who has may have no
formal tie to the issuer or holder of the credential - it can be a machine,
an app, or a person (a "decision maker").



On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Varn, Richard J <rvarn@ets.org> wrote:

> Right, but the entity using the claim does not verify, authenticate, or
> approve the claim--they use it for some process or purpose and the purpose
> is a gatekeeper function. I think gatekeeper, especially when pared with
> function, has drifted from a military context and it's a fairly unique
> phrase without any generic synonyms except the pretty obscure "ostiary." I
> have no firm position or dog in this discussion, licensed or otherwise
> holding any dog credentials, just thinking.
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On Mar 31, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/31/2016 11:28 AM, Varn, Richard J wrote:
> >> I had one additional thought about the consumer of claims. It
> >> strikes me that the role they are actually playing is gatekeeper. I
> >> got to this after thinking about the various processes in which
> >> claims are used and the reason that someone wants your claim/s is to
> >> evaluate it/them in a context. If the evaluation finds the claims
> >> and attendant and other sources of evidence sufficient, you get a
> >> chance at an opportunity, access to something, a permission, a
> >> benefit, and so on. I am not sure gatekeeper is the best word but
> >> wanted to share the line of thinking and see how it may help.
> >
> > I've had a similar thought, (with terms like "gatekeeper", "guard",
> > "sentinel", etc.) but felt it seemed those terms or many like it had too
> > many negative or militaristic connotations. That concept is where the
> > friendlier "approver" term came from. "Verifier" and "authenticator" are
> > in a similar vein.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dave Longley
> > CTO
> > Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> ________________________________
> 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.
> ________________________________
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 16:24:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 31 March 2016 16:24:23 UTC