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

Re: Terminology poll

From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:11:09 +0100
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <3e8dff49-fcb6-f493-bf63-6629967b7bea@kent.ac.uk>

At first glance it appears that your examples are based on the
assumption that the subject is uniquely identified in a globally
unambiguous way that everyone understands i.e. their common name and
perhaps address or nationality. But this is not the case for VCs were
meaningless IDs are used to identify subjects. Consequently it is not
apparent to the recipient who the instrument applies to. Hence the
presenter has to prove possession of the ID in the instrument. Copying
the instrument by third parties and putting different signatures on it
is not helpful, as they are not able to prove possession of the ID
(unless delegation of authority has been enacted)



On 21/06/2017 10:39, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> Reviewing it;  are there any other words for the 'inspector'....?  
> I was looking at 'trust law' (trustee, beneficiary, bequest, et.al
> <http://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
> <http://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
> <mailto: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 20:11:42 UTC

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