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

Re: Terminology poll

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:28:31 -0700
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <19b8bda9-3204-dcb4-e5d4-5f52c50c5bb0@sunshine.net>
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)

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.



> 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

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