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

ditto about the caveat:  what about 'checkpoint' - it's a check-point, do
not pass go, do not collect $100, provide your credentials and you may
pass...

Tim.H.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 at 00:36 Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 06/07/2016 11:00 PM, 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:
> >
> > Consumer
> > Inspector
> > Reader
> > Verifier
> > Receiver
>
> I'd like to add "Requester" to the list. I can't say it's my #1 (I
> apologize for not complying with that particular caveat for new
> suggestions), but it was offered in the previous call as an alternative
> so I thought it should be here.
>
> When someone visits a website that requires authentication, they will be
> asked to provide their credentials by this party. So we're talking about
> the party that is "requesting" a credential/set of claims from the
> holder. It seems natural that "Requester" should be considered as a
> possible name. They may not be the same party that does the verification
> or "inspection" as they may outsource this -- so I feel like it's a
> better name than "Verifier" or "Inspector".
>
> The term "consumer" has caused confusion/trouble for a number of people
> so I would prefer to find something less controversial.
>
> I'm also amenable to reusing an existing term of art, "Relying Party",
> as offered by David Chadwick. But it is both a positive and a negative
> that it's an existing term. While it's easy for people who know the term
> to grasp its purpose quickly, it may bring with it baggage we do not
> want or it may suggest to people that we're not inventing something new.
> We moved away from "user centric" for similar reasons, but there was a
> strong misalignment of definitions there whereas Relying Party closely
> matches here.
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Longley
> CTO
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> http://digitalbazaar.com
>
>