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

Re: Negative VCs

From: Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:42:18 -0400
Message-Id: <1498261338.3203111.1019593672.3AB27B45@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: public-credentials@w3.org
I don't follow the need for ROLE_B to prove anything. Nothing in the
data model provides any proofing for the holder/presenter/claimant. In
many use cases the relationship of the claimant to the subject is
immaterial or at least exogeneous to the claim.
Consider that I might publicly post academic credentials to my linkedin
profile and that a recruiter or potential boss includes those
credentials in recommending to HR that I come in for an interview.  The
credentials themselves hold the entirety of the verification required
for the relying party/verifier/inspector, aka HR, to decide whether the
credentials are valid.
At no time does it matter whether or not the particular
holder/claimant/presenter is authorized to provide the claim.
In the case of negative claims, I think this is even more true. If a
background check on me finds verifiable claims that, e.g., I failed
physics three times or had a crappy GPA, etc., the claim infrastructure
doesn't care if the claimant is an authorized representative.
Seems to me the important thing about the claimant isn't whatever rights
they have or what they've been authorized to do, it is simply what they
do: present a claim.  Whether or not presenting that claim is
appropriate in the context in which it is presented is a completely
different problem.

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017, at 06:38 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
> 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.
> regards
> David

Joe Andrieu, PMP
+1(805)705-8651Do what matters.


  1. http://www.legendaryrequirements.com
Received on Friday, 23 June 2017 23:42:47 UTC

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