W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > August 2016

definitions and use-case examinations (Was: Re: Revised Verifiable Claims WG Charter (RC-2) (was Re: Problem statement))

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 07:28:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok0EWcH+R8aBTpZdhBZ+BpRv0-vZoe28ioy3ppBeaf5v_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Cc: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Can we work-shop alternative terms for 'self-sovereign'?

The bulk of the use-cases currently in-scope for IG/WG purposes relate to
the issuance of 'credentials' between an authority and an individual.

Whilst Harry recently published a paper[1] relating to broader
considerations; however IMHO, within the concept of 'self[2]-sovereign[3]'
is, IMHO, a problem with the semantics of the term. IMHO, we're attempting
to ensure the output of the Credential CG supports alternative use-cases
that are more in-line with the concept of 'Socially Aware Cloud Storage'[4]
as may be further considered by reviewing Solid [5].

I've been thinking about this issue quite a bit, but haven't got to a point
where i feel sufficiently confident as to author my thoughts on the list
about it.

I reviewed the recent Teleconf [6] and am considering the implications of
the views expressed by Wendy in good-faith.

I've not had sufficient time to review, in detail, the newly drafted
charter; however, i felt the underlying study was an important part of
formulating a responsive approach.

Therein; i'm currently working through how to map public amenities (ie:
toilets).  Whilst the datasets do not currently result in information being
made available to mobile services such as SIRI or 'ok google', i've further
identified a lack of ontological support in schema.org [7].  As a
counterpart to the development of a potential solution that may leverage
existing works such as a recommended CMS [8] which may be relatively easily
updated to support structured data management [9] the means to do so, may
for all parties concerned (including that of search) benefit through the
use of signatures as to define by search, which is the most appropriate
source of information about a particular thing.  In this way, a community
contribution may be considered distinct from that provided, with a
signature, from a local council URI [10].

An array of other opportunities exist for citizens to better interact with
government on a civics level; however it's not really well described as
'self sovereign'.  Surely it's an important opportunity to consider how
citizens may indeed store their data independently to government operated
services; rather than necessarily storing their data with government, as a
pre-requisite to seeking access to services.  These sorts of models exist
of course, but more readily as operated by large international companies.

the same sorts of considerations apply.

Locally, the really big focus has for many months been on complaints around
the way in which the census is being operated [11][12], and whilst my
(somewhat adversarial) position is that it has been a disappointing use of
time by such extraordinary people here in Australia, given the opportunity
and/or ability to simply deploy a mobile app that connects to social-graphs
(ie: FB) and the means in which that may provide far more data than is
being sought by government; the underlying concerns and considerations as
are discussed on sometimes a very polarized and often misunderstood basis;
meets somewhere, in consideration of the role of the W3 CG, it's
interactions with other CG's and how W3C plays an important role in
defining counterparts to a much broader solution; that much like the
administrative around the time of the advent of the web some 25 years ago

These issues are very complex yet also, IMHO, very important...

I'll continue to consider the opportunities and strategic methodologies
that in my view, would be workable for stakeholders broadly.  Yet, i am a
little baffled still.  IMHO, it's really very complex and i'm a little
disappointed that some of the ontology work [16] I suggested around the
time the Credentials CG was formed, i can't find a resource to better
define how these forms of considerations have been further considered to a
meaningful resolution.  This of course relates in-part, to the changes that
have happened since the inception of the Credentials CG and how related
works, such as the WebDHT[17] work, has seemingly become 'homeless' for now
and/or a counterpart of the Credentials CG that is yet to find a pathway
and/or resources for further exploration.


Thoughts for the day.  As always, the teleconf. time is early morning for
me (2am) so it does make it hard; nonetheless, it's in your trusted hands
and as always, i'll contribute where and as I can :)

Tim. H

[2] https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+self
[3] https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+sovereign
[4] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/CloudStorage.html
[5] https://solid.mit.edu/
[6] http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-08-02/audio.ogg

[8] https://agov.com.au/
[9] http://opensemanticframework.org/
[10] https://github.com/AGLDWG/TR/issues/5
[11] https://www.efa.org.au/privacy/census-2016/

[13] http://go.web.cern.ch/go/sw7n
[14] http://home.cern/topics/birth-web
[15] http://www.internetsociety.org/history
[17] http://opencreds.org/specs/source/webdht/

On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 at 07:01 David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Manu
> A couple of comments on the latest version
> i) The first sentence could be formulated more precisely, as
> self-sovereign refers to credentials and not to standards. Similar
> comment applies tor privacy-enhancing. Therefore the following is more
> correct:
> There is currently no standard for expressing and transacting
> self-sovereign and privacy-enhancing verifiable claims (aka:
> credentials, attestations) via the Web.
> ii) in 3.1 you ought to define what you mean by privacy-enhancing
> (regardless of the resolution of i) above). You have already defined
> self-sovereign
> regards
> David
> On 06/08/2016 17:47, Manu Sporny wrote:
> > On 08/02/2016 12:24 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
> >> How about changing the first sentence of the problem statement
> >
> > Based on Wendy Seltzer and Microsoft's feedback, as well as the
> > resulting feedback from the VCTF and CCG, the charter text has been
> > changed to reflect the consensus we have built as well as address the
> > concerns raised to date. Remember that we're not looking for the perfect
> > charter, but one that all of us can live with.
> >
> > The new charter can be found here:
> >
> > http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/rc-2.html
> >
> > with a diff-marked copy here:
> >
> > http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/rc-2-diff.html
> >
> > I suggest you look at the latter link if you're only interested in the
> > changes from the previous draft charter.
> >
> > -- manu
> >
Received on Monday, 8 August 2016 07:51:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:42 UTC