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 12:27:35 -0700
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <e48e8e99-2c96-ca69-a10c-072708a19b36@sunshine.net>
On 2017-06-26 10:52 AM, Dave Longley wrote:
> 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 SHARER 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.
> 
> I think that may actually be the only common purpose for this particular
> role given the various use cases where it appears in different forms.
> 
> The most fundamental reason we have that role, IMO, is to demonstrate
> that the entity that made the claim (Issuer) does not have to be the one
> sharing the claim with the relying party (Inspector). That's the whole
> point:
> 
> Party A can make a claim that party B can share with party C such
> that party C trusts it came from A -- without trust in party B.
> 
> That's the strength of verifiable claims; you don't need party A to be
> the one who hands the claim over to party C.

That's a strong argument, but after trying various combinations on the 
poll page, I still think Sharer lacks something, which is the 
self-sovereign aspect.

The way the poll page is set up, the word we choose has to do for both 
cases where the role is split and where it's not. I think Sharer is 
especially not ideal when the Subject and the 
Holder/Presenter/...Sharer are the same person.

Example, plugging in 'Sharer', 'Presenter', and 'Holder' to compare them:

"A(n) Sharer may present Claims directly to a Verifier. For example, 
providing a digital driver’s license directly to a Verifier."

"A(n) Presenter may present Claims directly to a Verifier. For 
example, providing a digital driver’s license directly to a Verifier. "

"A(n) Holder may present Claims directly to a Verifier. For example, 
providing a digital driver’s license directly to a Verifier. "

To rephrase these, if I have my own driver's license, then I am either:
The Presenter of it
The Holder of it
The Sharer of it

I feel that Sharer falls down in this example; the other two seem 
better, especially Holder.

The other main side of the split is if I'm authorized to be my niece's 
legal guardian. The certificate that allows me that, the claim, I can 
then be:

The Presenter of it
The Holder of it
The Sharer of it

Here they're closer, but again I'd prefer Holder.

To me Sharer doesn't convey the idea that there's authorization in the 
Role to care for the Subject's data. I believe Holder does, and 
Presenter does but less so. Not so Sharer.

Steven
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 19:28:02 UTC

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