- From: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:57:57 +0100
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
On 12/06/2016 22:13, Steven Rowat wrote: > 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'. This can be addressed in a couple of ways (at least) 1. Who is the issuer? If the issuer is a legal entity, this implies the name is a legal one, whereas if the issuer is the holder, it implies a pseudonym. 2. The attribute can be subclassed so that the holder/issuer can decide to issue either a generic name claim, or a specialised name claim (such as pseudonym, legal name etc.) regards David > Claim: The holder is a doctor. > > Steven > >> >> >> regards >> >> David >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 13 June 2016 07:58:21 UTC