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

Re: Poll words split Role B

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:01:07 +0200
Cc: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C6D5679E-0387-4DE9-8B8C-C0B5264378BB@bblfish.net>
To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>

> On 26 Jun 2017, at 18:03, 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.

Sorry for coming a bit late to the discussion. Here are some thoughts...

"Issuer" has the advantage that that is what is used in X509, but it only allows one
issuer, which is a disadvantage of X509 too.

Authority - seems to give the issuer more weight than might 
  be needed in some circumstances. It depends what the use 
  cases are I suppose. 

I am wondering if one could have statements in a murder case such as 

    I saw so and so at the bus station on Jan 15 2017 at 9am.
  Now the seer is clearly the authority on what he has seen. 

  What seems to be missing though is the relation that relates the 
claim to the signer. Could there be any number of them?

  Joe saw { JSmith do X . ... }

  DrMorgenStein states { JSmith has Measles }
  DrMorgenStein verified { JSmith has Measles }

  Joe claims { Joe foaf:knows Jim }

If all of those are ok, then perhaps there is a super-relation to all these relations.
Perhaps it is just the claims relation?

Having a relation there could be useful in that it could allow specialized applications to 
specify the type of claim more precisely?


> -- 
> Dave Longley
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 17:01:42 UTC

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