Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

I believe the "owner" may conflicts with the signature graphs of a signed
credential.  I still hold that "holder" is the best fit.  Even in a
guardian situation, they are "holder" of the credential for the minor.

Eric
On Mar 30, 2016 12:49 PM, "Stone, Matt" <matt.stone@pearson.com> 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) :)
>
> The case of a Power of Attorney may be another example where the holder <>
> subject.  In the power of atty case, the Holder has permission to act on
> behalf of the Subject - particularly relevant in fianance
> (open/close/manage bank accounts) and health care (liviing will).
>
> -stone
>
>
> =====
> Matt Stone
> 501-291-1599
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Note that the holder may NOT be the owner.  Consider, for example, if I
>> were to assist my elderly parents by holding their credentials for them to
>> assist with banking or medical issues (for example).  But I am not the
>> subject nor am I the owner.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Working on shifting my thinking from “credential” to “claim” and not all
>>> claims are earned. Thinking that “holder” isn’t bad but may be a little
>>> vague. How about “owner”. We do own our claims, right?
>>>
>>> Not to go off topic too far but something to consider as part of this
>>> thread: Richard said something interesting about the issuer being
>>> responsible for maintaining the evidence. I’d argue this isn’t necessarily
>>> always true even though it has been true in many cases. This could change.
>>> It may be that the issuer provides the evidence initially but that the
>>> evidence could be maintained and added to by the earner (holder or owner).
>>> It could just be that the issuer approves evidence or that an endorser
>>> provides and maintains evidence.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Kerri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for "Holder" - Eric said, "I hold my credentials in my wallet". ;-)
>>> <https://mail.google.com/>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Dave Longley <
>>> dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/30/2016 10:34 AM, Varn, Richard J wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We call the actor about whom the claim is made an “earner” as they
>>>>> earned the claim in some fashion  This may not work for all uses
>>>>> descriptively but it has a positive sound to it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does have a nice positive ring to it for certain scenarios. However,
>>>> it's true that it doesn't work for many cases, such as place of birth,
>>>> age, citizenship, address, email, and so on (though I suppose you could
>>>> argue that some of those may be "earned" in some sense!). I think
>>>> "holder" is working for that actor for most people in the more generic
>>>> case. But others can correct me if they feel differently.
>>>>
>>>> We use “consumer” for the one who uses an earner’s claim so plus one
>>>>> there.  The source of the evidence for the claim is from the
>>>>> “issuer” of the claim (this is where I really miss being able to say
>>>>> credential).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we'll be able to say a credential is a set of verifiable claims.
>>>> It's the container for claims.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Longley
>>>> CTO
>>>> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>> http://digitalbazaar.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shane McCarron
>> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>>
>
>