Re: Terminology poll

On 2017-06-21 1:36 PM, David Chadwick wrote:

>> https://vcwg-terminology-playground.firebaseapp.com/
> 
> this set is limited and does not contain sufficient alternatives e.g.
> Subject is missing

I was wondering about this also. Will all the alternatives from the 
playground be added to this list eventually?


> Claims terminology will be used in the Data Model spec:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NWdpFxbERXZodvbJP_GgGZhkGI54zWmqTuFz-CR2hps/edit

In Role 2, in terms of it being a split role as David Chadwick pointed 
out in the terminology playground comments:

Is it possible this could be a place for pseudonymity?

E.G, Role 2 would allow all of:

Holder of credential for my dog (Subject)
Holder of credential for my Alzheimer parent (Subject)
Holder of credential for my pseudonym (Subject)
etc.

If so, wouldn't it seem best to have a separate main word for each of 
those parts?
E.G.  Holder+Subject, or Controller+Subject

Or even, go to having four roles rather than 3, so that it becomes 
something like:

1. Issuer
2. Controller
3. Subject
4. Evaluator

Role 3 isn't used if there's only 1 entity for both; but it can be 
issued at any time by the Controller as a pseudonym.

?

Steven

> 
> David
> 
>>
>> 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
>>
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 22 June 2017 17:28:57 UTC