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

Re: Terminology poll (updated)

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:00:28 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1ePo17V6hQK2fY6unu3OKjH=kY2gihBbZM3UsApaVsAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
Note:. Two document versions are being circulated incorporating the use of
ROLE_A through to C or alternatively D,

In which the embodiment of the apparatus may confuse the roles in which the
notation of names has been provided.

Note 2: does the document have some sort of "same origin" rule on it?  Ie:
is it necessarily served up from a web location that is the same in some
way as the identifier notating the identity / subject outlined in the doc.

Kinda similar to TimBLs / early WebID related symmetrical foaf concepts?

Note 3: Re: "inspector" I was looking at due diligence law

The consumer of the credential will most often be seeking the instrument
for some sort of check or benefit made from gaining access to the doc.

Reasonable they've got a responsibility at times to ask for the information
that will be contained in them.

So. In some ways they may seem like a checkpoint, or reviewer.

Could also be a decoder.


- Encoder
- (Authorised?) Store
- Decoder


On Tue., 27 Jun. 2017, 2:28 am Manu Sporny, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

> I have updated the terminology playground with the latest options (be
> sure to shift-reload):
> https://vcwg-terminology-playground.firebaseapp.com/
> The poll has also been updated with the latest options:
> https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/5724357032673280?p=1
> Important changes:
> * An additional role has been added for "Subject". This is an attempt
>   to address Steven Rowat, Dave Longley, and David Chadwick (among
>   others') concerns around split roles (Subject/Presenter).
> * The number of options for ROLE_C has become so large that it will
>   most likely lead to bad polling results. I suggest that we start
>   aggressively culling the ROLE_C list before the vote starts
>   tomorrow. We should get some strong arguments against roles that you
>   feel should not be in the running.
> As a reminder, this is how we suggested that the poll is conducted last
> week (with added detail):
> 1. We finalize the poll during the VCWG call tomorrow. For ROLE_C,
>    we will hopefully remove options that at least 25% of folks don't
>    think are in their personal top 5 list.
> 2. The poll will run for seven days and close 5pm ET July 4th.
> 3. Anyone that has educated themselves on the options should vote. If
>    you haven't been following at least one of: the issues, mailing list
>    discussion, or the calls, please don't vote. For example, please
>    don't circulate the poll to your work colleagues that don't
>    participate in the WG or CG and ask them to vote.
> 4. If you vote, you are asked to vote in an individual capacity and not
>    on behalf of your organization. We want terminology that is both
>    correct and that will immediately resonate with readers.
> -- manu
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 17:01:14 UTC

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