- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:12:13 -0400
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
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 CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc. http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 16:12:43 UTC