Re: Terminology poll (updated)

i'm also generally -1 on "sharer" and "claimant" based on the arguments in
this thread.


=====
Matt Stone
501-291-1599


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> 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
>
>