- From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:41:52 -0800
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
On 2/15/16 6:54 AM, Dave Longley wrote: > 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". Maybe this too radical to be useful here, but it occurs to me that there's a philosophical argument (at least) that the 'holder' is actually the 'owner'. As follows: If Jane has a university degree, let's say a BSc, issued by let's say MIT, and let's say it was issued ten years ago (just to give a context) -- Jane says, in normal human speech with other people: "I have a BSc. It's from MIT." Jane is then the owner of the BSc, in normal, non-specialized human understanding. It's her BSc. The fact that it came from MIT is merely an attribute of her BSc. In fact, usually she wouldn't even mention it. "I have a BSc" would be the more common usage. And in normal human speech, we wouldn't say MIT 'has' or 'owns' Jane's BSc. This is logical, because MIT can only issue a BSc if it's further accredited by a government, or by an association of universities. So MIT is only partially responsible for its power to issue the BSc. But, before this *specific* BSc was issued, it didn't even exist. It was issued so that Jane and only Jane could have it. So, in effect, it wouldn't be surprising to say she owns it, IMO. I see that there are other ways to interpret this, but it has a major advantage of being part of the everyday usage in our society. And if we started from that -- with 'owner' as the central word -- then it might make the privacy implications much clearer also. She also owns what can be done with it, to at least some distance from herself. ? Steven > > 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 > >
Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 17:42:20 UTC