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

Re: Terminology poll (updated)

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:34:31 -0700
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <1bc2af71-b1c5-fa5a-35be-16da27a0bb28@sunshine.net>
On 2017-06-26 9:27 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> * 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.

Here's my attempt to cull new Role C (the Holder/Presenter/... list) :

This seems in the wrong role. IMO it's closer to what role D does by 
checking the claim.
Or even Role B, who checked various facts before issuing the claim. I 
can't see it fitting in what Holder/Presenter does.

-1 SUBJECT [for role C only]
The point behind having a split role is that there will be cases where 
it's necessary to distinguish. If Subject is already used in Role A, 
then it doesn't make sense to me to have it as an option in role C. If 
I'm acting on my dog's behalf, we can't both be the Subject.

I find this too non-specific, possibly confusing. I believe the word 
should have some meaning relative to the role, and 'mediates the 
claim' seems too vague.

IMO it seems to imply a specific role of 'distributing' the claim. 
Maybe this is just baggage from other OS uses in my case, but I 
wouldn't mind if it was removed from the list.

This word seems the best and the worst, sadly. :-)
I understand D Longley's arguments that because VC is already set up 
for 'claims' being made by the Issuer (Role B), then this would 
confuse which role was the Claimant. That seems a valid argument. So I 
could live with Claimant being removed.

However, I also don't think Claimant should be moved to Role B 
('Issuer' list), which has just been suggested by David Booth in this 
thread, because in actual use the 'Holder/Presenter' will be taking 
this action -- 'claiming' something, using their claim as evidence -- 
and so it could be confused with their role still. So IMO it should be 
completely removed. Unless somebody has other arguments. :-)


> 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
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 17:35:02 UTC

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