Re: Revised Verifiable Claims WG Charter (RC-2) (was Re: Problem statement)

I think it's more complex and can relate to the means in which a credential
is formed.

a credential could, for instance, have an array of counterparts.  thereby
supporting both a claim relating to a birthdate in addition to
independently supporting a claim that simply states 'over 18' without
necessarily declaring the birthdate.

anything with a birth-date would also presumably support some sort of
'name' and other identity information.  whether these sorts of datapoints
are required for various use-cases, ie: access to an adult website - really
depends on the construction - yet also, is it not important for us to
figure that out as a counterpart of what we're putting forward?

Tim.H.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 at 11:51 Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:

> FWIW I interpret privacy-enhancing as the ability for holders and subjects
> of a claim to limit the verifiable exposure of information from the claim
> to specific processors and for specific periods of time.  Or something to
> that effect.
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 3:57 PM, 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
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>