- From: Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:37:54 -0700
- To: "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 17:38:53 UTC
I lean toward continuing to use "recipient" as the entity that has been awarded a credential. "Earner" implies that they have done something to deserve it, which may not be the case; "holder" is ambiguous because as Matt says, it may make sense to "hold" credentials on behalf of their true subject. Matt Stone Wrote: > In previous discussions we considered "subject" as a term for the entity about whom the claim is asserted. In many cases the subject is both the "earner" and the "holder". I loved the example (dave or shane?) used of "I have my dog's rabies license" in that case, I'm the "holder" and my dog is the "subject" or "earner" (i think we could argue he earned it) :) *Nate Otto* *Director, Badge Alliance* badgealliance.org
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 17:38:53 UTC