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 09:54:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok13DeaHBybi_z+C+WpBC1HGSQeHTAidzyq6h9X7FPjbJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Another idea:
Signatory - party who produces a cryptographically signed document
Instrument - the signed document.
Consumer - the user of the instrument who is reliant upon signatory for its
context and purpose.

Question; where are we addressing the means in which to ensure the
instrument is being provided to an assignee?

I understand this is a somewhat modular framework query; yet, i wasn't sure
if it had been addressed somewhere with regard to the cryptographic /
machine based testing in relation to validating the presentation (and
presenter) of a claim.

old thinking was that WebID works were playing a bigger role, OIDC is
another (beneficially emerging) method. an very old example (some pages
seemingly not working) was done here
http://mediaprophet.org/ux_KB/page4115292.html#0  some time ago...

Tim.H.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 at 19:39 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Reviewing it;  are there any other words for the 'inspector'....?
>
> I was looking at 'trust law' (trustee, beneficiary, bequest, et.al.) for
> ideas.
>
> 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
> signatures.
>
> 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:
> http://www.peo.gov.au/uploads/image_gallery/the-law/PEO_0701_separation-powers.jpg
>
> or re: a form of behavioural models:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle#/media/File:Karpman_drama_triangle-2.png
>
>
> 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
> authors/users/consumers).
>
> I know we have more time. i just wanted to raise these ideas sooner rather
> than later.
>
> tim.h.
>
>
> 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 09:54:49 UTC

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