- From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:13:23 -0700
- To: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 6/12/16 1:32 PM, David Chadwick wrote: > I believe the latest definition of claim in the architecture document > > http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/ > > is fundamentally wrong. It says > > Claim > A statement made by an entity about a subject. For example: "Jane is > a doctor." > > The example is not one claim, but two claims. It claims that the subject > is a doctor and that the subject is called Jane. We should rewrite this > to say > > Claim > A statement made by an entity about a holder. For example: "The > holder is a doctor." +1 So, "The holder's name is Jane" is separate claim. Then, sorry to partially hijack your thread, but as an interesting extension, I can relate this to my other concern about pseudonyms (aliases), and make a third claim: "The holder has a pseudonym 'George'". This leads specifically to the interesting fact that the simple 'name' of Jane is implied to be the 'legal name' (unless stated otherwise). So perhaps it would be best to always make that explicit. Otherwise it's ambiguous -- what sort of name is it? Who calls Jane Jane? Claim: The holder has legal name 'Jane'. Claim: The holder has pseudonym 'George'. Claim: The holder is a doctor. Steven > > > regards > > David > > > >
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2016 21:13:50 UTC