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

Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:24:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJdbnOD6KuoqM9ibY5RMG=AW7m+XKVoNdHfP3CtRETv88JyX3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
Cc: "Varn, Richard J" <rvarn@ets.org>, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Eric,

I actually meant "consumer" as in someone who purchasing something.  In a
financial transaction (e.g., purchasing from wine.com) I am the consumer of
the wine (eventually!) and wine.com is the consumer of my credential.  But
I think that is okay.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
wrote:

> +1 Shane I think it works perfect for financial...in finance when we
> consume something, we are acquiring something.  In our case, we are
> acquiring the credential metadata.
>
> <https://mail.google.com/>
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:
>
>> Yeah - I think consumer is the appropriate generic term.  It is
>> unfortunate that it has a conflicting meaning in the financial space...
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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").
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> <https://mail.google.com/>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shane McCarron
>> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>>
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 17:25:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 31 March 2016 17:25:13 UTC