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

Re: Terminology poll

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:39:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3to7t8kZGkAKt9-m-95OFJ2NZYv79ze55DOfyEGPKuqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Reviewing it;  are there any other words for the 'inspector'....?

I was looking at 'trust law' (trustee, beneficiary, bequest, et.al.) for

Given the crypto would be a legal instrument of the 'issuer', whatever that
instrument says and indeed whether or not it works; is solely upto the
creator of the signed document.

Regardless of who receives that document (depending on use-case, et.al.)
the recipient / examiner seeks to test the crypto and do something on the
basis of the remarks made in the document; yet once that document has been
provided, the solution doesn't stop anyone from storing that document or
duplicating it's contents, to create a new signed document with different

Any other examples of these sorts of '3 pillar systems' for the purposes of
trust, in traditional society we can use to figure out a use-case neutral
format for the language?

ie: judiciary, executive, parliament:

or re: a form of behavioural models:

The other thing i wanted to note; was that if ontological terms are noted;
but the terms they're pointed to are not version controlled, then the
instrument may in-future say something different, to what it was designed
to say when it was created.

Example i've used before is: https://schema.org/Physician = a place today,
perhaps in the future it might be a person or profession attributed to a
person; rather than perhaps, a place of work?

understanding this could be avoided by defining the descriptions; or
providing a copy of those descriptions in the document; perhaps these
things have different 'classes' which could be described in ontological
form to figure out at what level someone should rely upon the document
itself (rather than assertions being put upon a technology method,
regardless of how that technology method has been employed by

I know we have more time. i just wanted to raise these ideas sooner rather
than later.


On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 at 11:54 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'm notifying this community of something going on in VCWG space as we'd
> like some educated input on some terminology changes we're making from
> this CG since the terminology changes are expected to affect this CG.
> ---------------
> Email sent to the VCWG:
> Per my action from the VCWG call today, here is a Google Doc for
> brainstorming the language we'll use to present how the Verifiable
> Claims terminology will be used in the Data Model spec:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NWdpFxbERXZodvbJP_GgGZhkGI54zWmqTuFz-CR2hps/edit
> Please suggest additional phrases where the terminology may be used to
> help people understand what they feel most comfortable with using.
> The language in the document above will be moved to the terminology
> playground app that can be used to try out variations of the suggested
> terminology before people vote:
> https://vcwg-terminology-playground.firebaseapp.com/
> Here is a draft terminology poll that does Instant Run-off Voting, this
> will go live next Tuesday at the earliest.
> https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/5724357032673280?p=1
> Here's what we need from those that want to participate by next Monday
> (June 26th):
> 1. Provide unique example phrases that use the terminology in the first
>    document.
> 2. Propose missing terminology that has support from at least two
>    people (and no more than two objections) to the poll.
> Timeline:
> 1. We'll decide whether or not to run the poll on next Tuesdays VCWG
>    call (June 27th).
> 2. The poll will be open for 7 days and will close at the beginning of
>    the following Tuesday (July 4th).
> I suggest we run the poll with the following additional rules:
> * We want as many EDUCATED INDIVIDUAL VOTERS voting as possible. Please
>   abstain from voting if you don't fully understand the consequences of
>   this vote.
> * Please vote in an individual capacity, not on behalf of your
>   organization, we want to know how individuals will react to the
>   language (not what your official corporate position is). If you have
>   to ask your co-workers how they voted, you're doing it wrong. :)
> * The result of the vote is non-binding, the final decision will be
>   made by the Editors and the Chairs of the VCWG. This is a data
>   gathering exercise.
> -- manu
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 09:39:53 UTC

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