- From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:41:33 -0700
- To: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 3/30/16 6:09 AM, Kerri Lemoie wrote: > I agree with Jim. I also think that an actor label helps to make a > technology relatable and consume (consumer) is an apt enough term that > if defined & supported well works if it’s described as “uses > credential” . It implies that the data is being used however the user > (consumer) intends to use it and does not add any implications on how > the data should be used. Perhaps a point where some of us are talking past others in this discussion that might clear some things up (at least for me) is: Will the term 'consumer' be buried in the code, so that only developers see it, or will it be offered up front to the average 'holder' of a credential/claim (who, I re-emphasize, has been trained to respond to themselves being 'the consumer' in our society). If 'consumer' is buried in the code and only seen by developers, I agree that it doesn't make much difference. But, if the 'consumer' of a credential is going to be part of the surface-level UI, then I still think almost anything else would be better. A current example: the first time I read Kerri's statement above, I subconsciously misread the phrase "however the user (consumer) intends to use it" in exactly this way. I thought It meant the 'holder', not the body that is requiring it later. I had to read it again to get the entrenched 'consumer' definition out of my mind. As a developer, who is using the term over and over, I could re-map this relatively easily. But with a credential 'holder', who might only occasionally -- or only once or twice, even -- encounter this usage, I think the confusion would be common. Steven Rowat > > > Kerri > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com >> <mailto:jgoodell2@yahoo.com>> wrote: >> >> It is difficult (sometimes impossible) to find a label that works >> for everyone and every use, in this case for an actor with multiple >> roles (needs credential, earns credential, receives credential, uses >> credential for x, y, and z). Better to find a label for the actor >> that works "well enough" (with no strong objections); then clearly >> define, in the context of verifiable claims, all that label means >> about a person's role in the ecosystem. A two or three sentence >> definition can remove ambiguity of a single word label. >> >> -Jim >> >> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 1:25 AM, Stone, Matt >> <matt.stone@pearson.com <mailto:matt.stone@pearson.com>> wrote: >> >> Since our fundamental topic is a "verifiable claim", maybe >> "verifier" fits. >> >> I'm afraid we're overthinking the nuance and subtext to the >> point that no one will get it when we eventually roll it out. >> I respect that language has power but also know than few others >> will think as deeply as we do on the topic. If it's overworked, >> we'll spend the next 5yrs saying things like "Think about it >> like this..." >> >> -stone >> >> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016, Steven Rowat >> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net <javascript:return>> wrote: >> >> On 3/29/16 9:42 PM, Dave Longley wrote: >> >> So, I believe we need a term that indicates that someone >> is in need of >> something (ie: a credential) in order to proceed with >> some action. >> >> >> demander >> requirer >> needer >> necessitator >> requisitioner >> caller >> >> S. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ===== >> Matt Stone >> 501-291-1599 <tel:501-291-1599> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 19:41:58 UTC