- From: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:26:22 +0100
- To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 13/06/2016 15:34, Dave Longley wrote: > On 06/12/2016 03:52 PM, David Chadwick wrote: >> I would like to suggest a change to the latest data model document >> http://opencreds.org/specs/source/claims-data-model/ >> >> Specifically, the document abstract currently says >> >> A TBD credential is a set of claims made by an entity about an >> identity. A TBD credential may refer to a qualification, achievement, >> quality, or other information about an identity such as a name, >> government ID, home address, or university degree that typically >> indicates suitability. >> >> The problem I have with this, is that the set of claims are being >> made about an identity, rather than the set of claims actually being >> the identity. In my opinion the above is in direct contradiction to >> the first sentence of the abstract which says 'An identity is a >> collection of attributes about an entity'. >> >> I would therefore like to change the abstract to read >> >> A TBD credential is a set of claims made by one entity (the issuer) >> about another entity (the holder). A TBD credential may refer to a >> qualification, achievement, quality, or other information about the >> entity. A set of credentials forms one of possibly many identities >> of the entity. >> >> If this is agreed, then other similar changes will be needed >> throughout the document such as: a collection of digital TBD >> credentials that assert claims about that identity. TBD Credentials >> are associated with identities etc. > > I don't see the same contradiction, so the language is failing in one > way or another. I consider "an identity" to be the superset of all > possible sets of credentials. A set of credentials is merely a profile > of that identity. Can I ask you "how many identities can a subject have?". Your sentence above implies the answer is one. If so, then we have a fundamental disagreement regards David > > We should probably change all of this language to talk instead about a > Subject, which is given an identifier. And then talk about how > associations can be made between that identifier and other pieces of > information, in order to establish claims/attributes about the Subject. > That may help avoid the "identity" confusion altogether. > >
Received on Monday, 13 June 2016 15:26:45 UTC