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 13:17:12 -0700
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <53e51a8b-9625-443d-ce12-34a205fc7ba0@sunshine.net>
On 2017-06-26 1:02 PM, Stone, Matt wrote:
> 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). 

Yes, well said.

Steven



  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 <mailto: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 20:17:43 UTC

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