- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:34:46 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Tim Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJxKvyOXN9P9ednkz7XoXj5EWgKTRyP=ijGYvE4m1X2Jw@mail.gmail.com>
On 27 August 2014 02:18, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > Tim, I'm splitting responses into multiple email threads in an attempt > to make the responses more manageable. > > On 08/25/2014 02:35 AM, Tim Holborn wrote: > > *SUMMARY* I consider the endeavour set-out by Web Credentials, to be > > an enormous undertaking. It is both extraordinarily important; and, > > a body of work to be carried out in an environment that has otherwise > > required a plurality solutions for a plurality situations. > > Underlying the body of work must be a baseline set of ’shared > > values’, such as respect of human rights, and a belief in the > > capacity of the endeavour to provide safety for individuals, to our > > best efforts as contributors to a technical solutions, for real-world > > problems. > > +1 > > > I note that “identity credentials” in your ‘proposed web-payments > > specification stack’ is defined as ‘identity credentials (login and > > preferences)[13] > > Yeah, that's not what was intended. I've updated it to hopefully still > be succinct, but infer that credentials are a part of what we're trying > to do: > > > https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/17mfHu4EqsnZQ2eFI115qC8FUuLOX-ZSnWpCjo7q1Vlc > > > I’ve cc’d WebID - in the hope that participants of WebID join the > > Credentials Group http://www.w3.org/community/credentials/ in > > supporting, at a minimum, discourse surrounding the requirements > > analysis. > > I had a chance to sit down and show Stephane Corlosquet and Andrei > Sambra what the Identity Credentials spec can do during SemTech 2014 > last week. So, there is an ongoing dialog there. For those that don't > know, Stephane and Andrei edited/authored a number of WebID specs. So I > do expect that discourse will happen. I also worked closely with > Stephane on RDFa 1.1, so I'd take that as a positive sign as well. > > > Whilst i appreciate that for the purpose of Web-Payments, JSON-LD is > > required; i do ponder whether other forms of serialisation can also > > be supported - normalising upon the concept of using methodologies > > compatible with (or supportive of?) ‘linked data’. > > Yes, other serializations (like NQuads) can be used. Some > serializations, like TURTLE, are going to be very difficult to get > working (due to the syntax not supporting graph names). For example, you > can't digitally sign a graph very easily in TURTLE. > Manu, I was wondering if you familiar with TriG? http://www.w3.org/TR/trig/ Could it solve this use case? > > > therefore: - What is the difference between credential and a receipt > > or document? > > A document is a generalized form of credential and receipt. We get more > specific about what we're talking about as we get more specific about > the use. For example, credentials are used to prove that you have/hold > certain abilities. Receipts prove that you have exchanged value for > something. > > Fundamentally, they're more-or-less the same thing, which is why we're > proposing that the same basic technology stack of JSON-LD + Digital > Signatures + Secure Messaging are used for both. We have a general > solution to the problem, we should see how far we can push that before > having to invent things that are specific to a particular market > vertical. It's my hope that we can push the market vertical stuff into > vocabularies, ensuring that the protocol/syntax level stuff stays the > same across the Web Payments and Credentials work. > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments > http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/ > >
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2014 20:35:15 UTC