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

Re: Terminology poll (updated)

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:09:36 -0400
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <7a47ee73-e3ab-1453-f1e2-31bc11dcd2ac@digitalbazaar.com>
On 06/26/2017 01:34 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
> 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) 
> :
> -1 PROVER 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.

I'm not an advocate for this name either, but my understanding of the
reasoning for it is: this Role is responsible for providing proof to the
Inspector that the claim was made. That proof may be somehow found in
the claim itself or it may be performed via some zero knowledge challenge.

I'd prefer to remove it as well, because it seems specific to certain
proof protocols. I don't think it really captures the essence of Role C
and I believe other terms could do better whilst encapsulating the
"Prover" aspect of those proof protocols.

Regarding CLAIMANT:

I'm a -1 on Claimant for reasons stated before -- I think it introduces
confusion because multiple Roles are effectively making claims in the

Role C does make a claim, which is that "The Issuer said X about the
Subject." And that claim *is* what is verifiable. However, when we talk
about the data model and the claim we're actually modeling, we are
talking about X. We're talking about how we model what the *Issuer* has
claimed about the Subject. The claim made by Role C is merely implied by
the act of sharing.

So I think it is confusing to use the term Claimant at all here -- as
we've got a concrete claim that we're modeling (made by the Issuer) and
an implied, more ephemeral claim that results from the sharing of that
Issuer's claim with an Inspector. As noted before, some groups have
called the Issuer's claim an "attestation" or "assertion", but as this
is just a synonym for "claim", I don't think it actually promotes

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 18:10:04 UTC

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