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

Re: Terminology poll

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:39:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2p8HSDr1LWrdv-yE9=PyMH_dspRX7ePYaYcajsUvNt3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Tue., 27 Jun. 2017, 2:13 am Dave Longley, <dlongley@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.

It's not necessarily the case that a claim about a person (as a constituent
of the "subject") will be made to be in control of the subject.

Indeed in many cases it may be two organisations sharing data about 3rd
parties in a manner that is intended to provide service to seeking better
insurance premiums or other operational benefits.

Indeed, we don't really have human controlled identifiers on the web.  We
barely have identifiers on the web that are governed by the same state laws
as the person they denote as the services are governed by somewhere in the
world (often California) regardless of where in the world the human lives,
and their legal / cultural responsibilities thereafter.

(Being Aussie in this case ain't so bad, our states are "good mates",
noting other considerations given the global nature of these works, for the
betterment of humanity, un sustainability goals, asset.al.).

This unit of work, whilst i've always maintained an interest in progressing
the RWW / Crosscloud / solid (et.al.) works; the creds bit, imho, was
important to help refine the means in which to communicate the things
"others say about you" to form part of the prerequisites required for
persona development, inferencing related tooling, et.al.

But the creds work / verifiable claims work, is different to that RWW
styled / envisaged possibilities for the future of a better ID methodology
for humanity.

ATM, it's mostly "free services" that have a terms of service agreement
that may change from time to time as is most often governed by the "choice
of law" of (some county of) California.

If a government authority uses a Facebook API to issue you an enforcement
order that's stored somewhere else; say, it's a telecommunications
intercept related request.

Technology works.  You don't need to know anything about the claim even
though you might be the subject of it.

Have I missed something?


> --
> Dave Longley
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 16:40:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:39 UTC