W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > June 2017

Re: "Identity" - is a modal notion and the matrix

From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 08:26:12 +0100
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5ce92e45-47b6-5ba3-e346-e16cecfa12dc@kent.ac.uk>
Hi Steven

Spot on. What you have done is specified the VC architecture in an
entirely different way, but one can immediately see how the beholder is
the inspector, A is the holder of the VC, and A is also the issuer
because the VC is the self asserted biometric of A.



On 02/06/2017 23:58, Steven Rowat wrote:
> On 2017-06-02 2:23 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
>> On 02/06/2017 19:17, Joe Andrieu wrote:
> ...>> I think your notion of "authorize" would be more commonly regarded as
>>> acting on. I would go further and use the term apply.
>> or we could say, make a decision.
> Strongly agree.
> And I'm going to try to summarize, because this thread is large and
> fast-moving, but I feel like there's a chance for consensus cropping up.
> :-)
> But first, here's something I think is directly relevant that appeared
> in the journal "Cell" yesterday, and was reported in MedicalXpress: an
> interesting new evidence of a mechanism for how we (monkeys, but
> certainly us too) recognize faces. By attributes! And more simply than
> anyone imagined, as the authors say.
> Here's the MedicalXpress story:
> "Researchers decipher the enigma of how faces are encoded in the brain"
> https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-06-decipher-enigma-encoded-brain.html
> The key point is that there are 200 neurons, only, that are required,
> and each neuron measures a *single* attribute in the face, like the
> distance between the eyes, or the width of the hairline, or the skin
> tone, or texture.
> We can assume that these attributes are then pattern-matched, together,
> against stored previous measures in memory, and a match is 'recognized'
> for the entire group and so the face is 'identified'.
> This seems like a fundamental process, and perhaps one that parallels
> how this thread is showing we should approach 'Identity' through
> Verifiable Claims as well, both on and off-line.
> So: maybe these four statements are true? :
> 1. Identity of 'A' is in the eye of the beholder, B. (Beholder C might
> not recognize A at all, or might do so via a different set of evidence
> than B does.)
> 2. For any beholder such as B, 'recognition' (validation) of the
> identity is done by measuring, or receiving, a pattern of attributes of
> A, and comparing them with a pattern of attributes stored in B's memory.
> When a best fit is found, 'recognition' occurs, by B, of A. This is not
> an exact process, but rather a statistical, probability-based, process.
> 3. This recognition, of A by B, is the basis for a functional decision
> by B for some action B will take. B is collecting these particular
> attributes purposely, to gather information to help in making the
> decision. Thus the information is not, in general, something A 'gives
> B', but something B measures.
> 4. Privacy is concerned with whether A can prevent B from making the
> measurement.
> Steven
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2017 07:26:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:38 UTC