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

Re: Terminology poll (updated)

From: Stone, Matt <matt.stone@pearson.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:02:22 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+w1=RT5djj6o536ZqOsTAsdQgdtOPhECLSRfDK3h9YOXAQ9yA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
to me the language of "sharing" obscures the sense of ownership and
sovereignty the individual.  information sharing is the act of pushing a
claim around (more protocol centric, perhaps).  Before a claim is shared,
it's earned, collected, and curated.  holder/subject seems to fit those
actions better.


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


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 06/26/2017 03:27 PM, Steven Rowat 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.
>>
>
> Interesting -- I tend to think it fits that case better, especially
> thinking of it in terms of how other types of information are shared on
> the Web. People typically "share" their own data on the Web.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Why? Because of the surrounding word choice and grammar? With tweaks for
> Sharer, you get:
>
> A Sharer may share Claims with a Verifier. For example, sharing your
> digital driver's license with a police officer.
>
> That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The term "information sharing" is quite commonly used in relation to
> rights and regulations. I don't think saying that someone is the sharer
> of information fails to convey that there may potentially be some
> authorization requirements involved in the act of sharing.
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Longley
> CTO
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> http://digitalbazaar.com
>
>
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 20:02:53 UTC

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