Re: Request for terminology input - consumer/inspector/TBD Credential

On 08/06/2016 04:00, Manu Sporny wrote:
> We discussed terminology on the Verifiable Claims Task Force call today
> and left two things undecided. We really need to get this terminology
> straight in order to align the prose in all of the documents. As a first
> step, we need to get all of the options on the table.
> 
> -------
> 
> We have a block in our architecture block diagram that is currently
> labeled as "inspector":
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/architecture.svg
> 
> This is the entity that requests a set of verifiable claims from the
> holder and examines them to determine if they are valid for the purposes
> of granting access to a particular resource. Naming options include:

I would like to add

Relying Party : the entity that wishes to rely or depend upon the
Credentials that it has received

> 
> Consumer 

not liked due to confusion with B2C

> Inspector

Does not indicate why the entity has received the credential. Implies a
type of police action. Negative connotations.


> Reader

Any entity could be a reader. Does not indicate that it needs to depend
upon or verify the credential

> Verifier

Not bad, but verification is only a subset of the functionality of the
relying party.

> Receiver

Does not indicate any intention to rely on the credentials. A relay
could be a receiver but not necessarily the ultimate destination of the
credential.

regards

David

> 
> -------
> 
> We agreed to relabel the word "Credential" with a modifier in order to
> reduce confusion with other "credential initiatives". Naming options
> include:
> 
> Identity Credential
> Digital Credential
> Web Credential
> 
> -------
> 
> Please add to these list of options with the following caveats:
> 
> 1. If you propose something, make sure that you're the champion for
>    that term. Don't suggest something that you wouldn't want as the #1
>    pick.
> 2. If you propose something, make an argument for the use of that term
>    and an argument against all of the other terms.
> 3. Don't send "me too" emails. If you want to weigh in, please make
>    sure you're making an argument that no one else has made in order to
>    cut down on the number of emails sent to the mailing list.
> 
> We are going to collect input until midnight on Thursday and put up two
> Generalized Instant Runoff Voting[1] polls on Friday. The polls will be
> open for a week and will determine the final terminology we'll use
> across all of the documents.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> [1]https://www.opavote.com/methods#instant-runoff-voting
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 08:14:10 UTC