Re: Subject Holder Relationship

Excellent analysis, Joe. Seems right on. It's almost finding a new element
that fits into a missing hold in the periodic table.

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com> wrote:

> Here's where I was thinking...
>
> In the VRM conversation, the question of who works for whom was resolved
> by following the money.
>
> The subject of the credential is the candidate.
> The recruiter is holder.
> The prospective employer is the verifier.
>
> The employer is paying the recruiter to find them qualified candidates.
> The employer reviews and verifies any credentials they receive before
> scheduling an interview. Hence, the recruiter is working for the employer
> and therefore, the holder is acting for the verifier.
>
> I think that matches your chart.
>
> -j
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017, at 12:59 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
>
> Hi Joe
>
> On second thoughts this is another example of holder acts4 subject if
> the client subsequently validates the VC. But if the client relies on
> the recruiter to validate the VC, then the client does not need the VC
> so it is not an example of a VC use case
>
> Comments?
>
> David
>
>
> On 19/12/2017 20:38, Joe Andrieu wrote:
>
> Nice.
>
> For the case of the holder acting for a verifier: a recruiter passing on
> verified credentials of a candidate to their client.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017, at 12:20 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone
>
> given that today we discussed the topic of subject not being the holder,
> I thought I would try to classify the different types of VC that a
> verifier might receive, given all the possible relationships between
> subject, holder, issuer and verifier. I attach a jpeg picture that
> depicts my first thoughts on how we might classify the different types
> and/or ways that a VC might be presented to a verifier, in the shape of
> a binary decision tree. I find the diagram useful in that it is trying
> to capture the wide variety of possibilities, and eventually we will
> need to cover them all in either the data model or protocols or both, if
> we are not to leave gaps in our specifications.
>
> If this is worth pursuing further then maybe this should be put on the
> web somewhere, and/or distributed to the CCG as well - please advise.
>
> kind regards
>
> David
>
> Email had 1 attachment:
>
> *
>   |SubjectHolder.jpeg|
>     95k (image/jpeg)
>
>
> --
> Joe Andrieu, PMP
>                      joe@legreq.com <mailto:joe@legreq.com
> <joe@legreq.com>>
> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS
>      +1(805)705-8651 <(805)%20705-8651>
> Do what matters.
>                    http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Andrieu, PMP
>                    joe@legreq.com
> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS
>    +1(805)705-8651 <(805)%20705-8651>
> Do what matters.
>                  http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com>
>
>
>