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
https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/due-diligence/

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.

Ie:

- Encoder
- (Authorised?) Store
- Decoder

Tim.h.

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

> 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