- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:25:28 -0500
- To: John Tibbetts <jtibbetts@imsglobal.org>
- Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@halindrome.com>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 02/15/2016 11:14 AM, John Tibbetts wrote: > Hi all, > > I’ve sent an email to a friend who’s a registrar in a large eastern > university and active in the national association of registrars. > I’ve asked her if there’s a term-of-art for the role of credential > petitioner. I think there’s a good chance she’s not in today but > I’ll forward her response to the list. Thank you! Much appreciated. > > Of course now that I type the sentence ‘credential petitioner’ > doesn’t sound too bad. > > I also think ‘inspector’ might be a possibility. I like "petitioner" or "inspector". > > But of course if there’s an existing term out there we should give > that additional weight. > > John Tibbetts Chief Product Architect IMS Global Consortium > > > >> On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:54 AM, Dave Longley >> <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >> >> On 02/15/2016 08:51 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: >>> Hmm. But a "consumer" might not be the one doing the >>> verification. A consumer is the one that needs the claim to be >>> true (presumably). >> >> That's my concern as well. We could do something new with the >> entire terminology like "issuing party", "holding party", >> "storage/aggregator/curator/agent party", "interested party", >> where "interested party" takes over for "consumer". >> >> The "consumer" is the party that needs trust in the credential >> holder in order for it to do something. They are a "relying party", >> an "interested party", and sometimes a "service provider" (but not >> always). They are the party that wants to know (and be able to >> trust) something about another entity (for some reason). I don't >> know if any of that helps anyone think of a better name. >> >>> Requestor is more accurate in the case where we are talking about >>> the entity that is asking the holder for the claim. >> >> Unfortunately, "requestor" or "recipient" can be confused with the >> "holder" because the holder must request a credential be issued to >> them from the issuer. >> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie >>> <adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Verifier seems appropriate given that these are "verifiable" >>> claims >>> >>> On 15 February 2016 at 00:59, Steven Rowat >>> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 2/14/16 1:44 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: >>> >>> I'm happy with 'evaluators', but wonder what our colleagues in >>> the education industry think? ...[snip] >>> >>> Credential/Claim Requestor and Credential/Claim Verifier could >>> also work? >>> >>> >>> IMO any of Requestor, Verifier, or Evaluator would be preferable >>> to Consumer. >>> >>> Except, Requestor could be confused with 'holder', the >>> person/entity asking for the original issuing, since at the start >>> they are 'requesting' that a credential be issued for them -- >>> which they then take elsewhere to be Evaluated or Verified (or, >>> currently, Consumed). >>> >>> But as you noted, with multiple possible systems in play -- >>> finance, education, payments, government -- it's going to be hard >>> not to cause at least some confusion somewhere. >>> >>> >>> Steven >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- -Shane >> >> >> -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc. >> > > -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 16:25:55 UTC