Re: self-sovereign terminology (was Re: New revision of Verifiable Claims Architecture summary)

good evening;

> On 2016-06-14, at 21:55, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote:
> 
> On 6/14/16 10:52 AM, james anderson wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2016-06-14, at 16:03, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>>> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 06/14/2016 03:55 AM, james anderson wrote:
>>>> yes, why is “self-sovereign” a more appropriate term than
>>>> “sovereign”?
> 
>>> These aren't identifiers that nation states have control over, these are
>>> identifiers that individual entities have control over.
> 
> [snip]
> >> Hope that helps explain the careful deliberation around the
> >> self-sovereign term.
> >
> > it indicates that you may have intended to, but it does not convince.
> > best regards, from berlin,
> >
> > ---
> > james anderson | james@dydra.com <mailto:james@dydra.com> |
> > http://dydra.com
> 
> 
> Hmm...Manu has used the word 'control' twice in his explanation above.
> Is that closer? What would your opinion be of
> 
> Self-Controlled Credentials
> or
> Self-Controlled Identity

they would be more authentic combinations of the terms.
that is, if the intent is to indicate that the “self” is to effect control.

they suffer, however, in that they may imply either that the subject is necessarily in a dominant position wrt the claim or the claim is controlling itself.
from at least one reading of the documents, an essential aspect of the concept is that, while the claim is sovereign, that is, there is no other claim with respect to which it it would be “self-sovereign”, it is also true, that it does not control itself.
furthermore, from the lists of the several roles and the diagrams of their relations, there are various entities involved with the claim, yet it is not self-evident, which is to be the “self”.

best regards, from berlin,


---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com