Re: New revision of Verifiable Claims Architecture summary

good morning;

> On 2016-06-13, at 22:25, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> […]
> 
> High-level thoughts, especially on the v4 document? Don't nitpick the
> language yet, just trying to get an understanding of the general flow
> and see if people think that those that have almost no exposure to what
> we're doing would be able to pick the document up and understand it at a
> high-level.

yes, why is “self-sovereign” a more appropriate term than “sovereign”?

is the intent to describe a claim about a sovereign self, to ascribe “selfness” to the claim, or just to describe a sovereign claim?
reading back through the literature - that concerning  identity and that concerning politics, suggests that the identity discussion concerns the latter while “self-sovereign” appears in philosophy and politics to set some concept off from “the sovereign”.

there are even parallel discussions of identity and related topics, in which one document uses “sovereign” while the other uses “self-sovereign”, but no document turned up which contrasts the two and motivates the “self” qualification.

which suggests that the term “sovereign claim” would be more appropriate.

best regards, from berlin,
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com