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

RE: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: <Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 19:30:33 +0200
To: <shane@spec-ops.io>, <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
CC: <rvarn@ets.org>, <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, <kerri@openworksgrp.com>, <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FB5E170315856249A4C381355C027E4502BB55F521B8@HE100041.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

What was the problem with ‘Relying Party’ again?
It’s well-established in the identity community… and it doesn’t imply that what was consumed will be gone afterwards.

(Sorry if I have not followed all of the discussion’s turns… feel free to ignore if these arguments have been discussed and omitted for good reasons.)


From: Shane McCarron [mailto:shane@spec-ops.io]
Sent: Donnerstag, 31. März 2016 19:24
To: Eric Korb
Cc: Varn, Richard J; Dave Longley; Kerri Lemoie; Credentials CG
Subject: Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"


I actually meant "consumer" as in someone who purchasing something.  In a financial transaction (e.g., purchasing from wine.com<http://wine.com>) I am the consumer of the wine (eventually!) and wine.com<http://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<mailto: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.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io<mailto: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<mailto: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").


On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Varn, Richard J <rvarn@ets.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
> 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 17:31:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 31 March 2016 17:31:08 UTC