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

Re: Terminology poll

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:12:13 -0400
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <9c8e4a30-7711-6d8c-88b0-388b0873bdd8@digitalbazaar.com>
On 06/26/2017 12:05 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> Does the claimant necessarily need to agree with the issued claim?
> Or can they simply have the claim directed upon them without consent
> or counter statement.
> Ie: credit check.
> Telecommunications company has issue with internal process between 
> outbound sales and billing system which leads to dispute.
> Ie: outsourced sales person signs someone upto a plan that doesn't 
> exist over the phone.
> By the time that's done, and the billing system provides the info 
> after a cooling off period, the circumstance turns into a dispute.
> Dispute is unresolved so telecommunications company lists default on 
> customers credit record.
> Until the dispute is figured out, the "claim" is there yet not 
> necessarily agreed to by "claimant"...?

This is another reason that "Claimant" seems to add confusion. We would
be using it to describe the role of someone who did not actually make
the claim. The creator or originator of the claim is the "Claimant" --
and we have currently named that role "Issuer".

I think whether or not another party (usually the party the claim is
made about) wants to share that claim with an Inspector is where their
consent and agreement with that claim comes into play.

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 16:12:43 UTC

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