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

Re: Poll words split Role B

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:03:54 -0400
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <b1b835d6-0592-4fcb-e2c4-eaa12377c45b@digitalbazaar.com>
On 06/25/2017 01:33 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
> On 2017-06-25 2:37 AM, David Chadwick wrote:
>> 6. If the presenter is not the subject then the inspector needs to 
>> verify that the presenter is authorised to present the claim. This
>> can be done in a variety of ways e.g. a pre-established trust
>> relationship between the inspector and presenter; a VC delegating
>> authority from the subject to the presenter; a recognised procedure
>> for certain classes of subject and presenter; etc.
> Am I right that:
> a) this is where the 'split' in Role B (in the poll) resides; 
> (Presenter/subject or Claimant/Subject, etc.) ?
> b) pseudo-anonymity would likely reside in: "a recognised procedure
> for certain classes of subject and presenter" ?
> With reference to a), the split roles in B, it seems that if, for 
> example, the poll were to choose "Subject" as the word for Role B,
> then "Presenter" or "Claimant" could be added underneath in the code.
> But if "Claimant" or "Presenter" is chosen for role B, then it seems
> more problematic, or at least quite different.
> All those words are still available in the playground listing today,
>  Sunday:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NWdpFxbERXZodvbJP_GgGZhkGI54zWmqTuFz-CR2hps/edit
> Specifically, I mean that people are adding words as options for Role
> B that are actually both sides of the split. Shouldn't we just be
> choosing one side of the split, and know which side that is, in order
> to get the label for that side of the split correct?
> It appears to me that the way it's set up now might force the
> technology solution to be different dependent on what word is chosen
> in the poll, and I don't think that's the purpose of the poll, though
> I could be wrong.
> And this could lead extra work later, disentangling and possibly
> re-naming.

I think most (if not all?) people have agreed on the "Subject" side of
the split. So what is really being chosen is the other side -- but, as
I've argued, there's some conflation of what that role actually does ...
because it seems, at least to me, to be different in different use
cases. This is the main source of tangling IMO.

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 16:04:21 UTC

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