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

Re: Poll words split Role B

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:24:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok07pZLyKc36YwFouts4nuOO+qFqx9WoLZV0Di1-WeCCHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, public-credentials@w3.org

I've just noticed: this version,

ROLE_A: Subject

ROLE_B: Issuer, Authority, Author, Signatory

ROLE_C: Holder, Presenter, Receiver, Claimant, Subject, Prover, Guardian,
Mediator, Subject(‘s) Agent, Owner, Sharer, Recipient

ROLE_D: Inspector, Evaluator, Verifier, Consumer

Which has 4 roles rather than three.

In this version, I would consider,

ROLE_A: Signatory. (the creation of a signed document)

ROLE_B: Subject: an electronically signed machine readable instrument
containing claims that are verified to have been made by way of
cryptographic technology.

(Noting, it's not just the signature but also some way of doing a checksum
or similar on the claims made in the document itself, ie: tamper evidence)

ROLE_C: Holder (an agent that holds a claim).

ROLE_D: Consumer an agent who requires the available and use of a signed
document providing particular information as to perform an action.

- the means to ensure children do not access adult content on a particular
- to ensure a party has a prescription for a controlled substance
- to identify whether the email address an electronic Correspondence
purports to have been sent from, is indeed the same legal entity the human
readable texts states to be the case by way of HTML/JSON-LD content
contained within the electronic correspondence format.

Note; this model doesn't relate the holder of the credential to the
identifier necessarily.

Ie; I hold your passport. I present it to someone when they ask for it.
Assumption would be that the claim.itself has enough information in it to
identify that i'm presenting someone else's passport.

In the physical world that is an easy illustration (ie: they look at the
photo in the passport then look at the holder of it), same sort of thing
could be done electronically via different means.


On Tue., 27 Jun. 2017, 2:07 am Timothy Holborn, <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>

> I like / don't mind the use of the term "subject", I think it's
> sufficiently broad.
> Tim.h.
> On Tue., 27 Jun. 2017, 2:04 am Dave Longley, <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
>> 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
>> CTO
>> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 16:25:02 UTC

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