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

Negative VCs

From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:38:35 +0100
To: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e38b6e9f-bd54-192b-6046-78ee09e9e701@kent.ac.uk>
I think that most of us have been assuming that VCs are always positive
and confer some benefit on the subject. Common examples used by us have
been passport, credit card, club membership etc.

But what about negative VCs, such as a criminal record, 'points' on your
driving licence, or failure to pay a bill on time etc. Subjects are
going to be reluctant to present these to verifiers, especially if this
would remove any benefit that they were hoping to obtain from the
verifier's online service. In this case the VCs might be presented by
someone other than the subject of the VC, and by someone not wishing to
represent the subject of the VC.

For this reason I would support the following alternative wording in the
Terminology Playground

ROLE_B is typically the Subject of Claims. In some circumstances, where
the ROLE_B is not the Subject of the Claim, then ROLE_B must be able to
prove that they are 'authorised to provide the claim'. This is a
preferrable alternative to 'has the authority to represent the Subject
of the Claims', as it covers the latter case as well as a third party
providing negative VCs to a verifier.


Received on Friday, 23 June 2017 22:39:05 UTC

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