- From: Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:25:51 +0000
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Cc: "Varn, Richard J" <rvarn@ets.org>, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMX+RnBLXbU9SpYDhh3utAb=QF+1nh15udBaw+du5TpbSXaS4A@mail.gmail.com>
That's what I meant too. ;-) On Thu, Mar 31, 2016, 1:24 PM Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote: > Eric, > > I actually meant "consumer" as in someone who purchasing something. In a > financial transaction (e.g., purchasing from wine.com) I am the consumer > of the wine (eventually!) and wine.com is the consumer of my credential. > But I think that is okay. > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com> > wrote: > >> +1 Shane I think it works perfect for financial...in finance when we >> consume something, we are acquiring something. In our case, we are >> acquiring the credential metadata. >> >> <https://mail.google.com/> >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> >> wrote: >> >>> Yeah - I think consumer is the appropriate generic term. It is >>> unfortunate that it has a conflicting meaning in the financial space... >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm still on board for "consumer" - if you are viewing, processing, >>>> loading in, making a decision upon, etc. of a credential, your are >>>> _consuming_ it in one way or another. The consumer is a 3rd party - who >>>> has may have no formal tie to the issuer or holder of the credential - it >>>> can be a machine, an app, or a person (a "decision maker"). >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> <https://mail.google.com/> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Varn, Richard J <rvarn@ets.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Right, but the entity using the claim does not verify, authenticate, >>>>> or approve the claim--they use it for some process or purpose and the >>>>> purpose is a gatekeeper function. I think gatekeeper, especially when pared >>>>> with function, has drifted from a military context and it's a fairly unique >>>>> phrase without any generic synonyms except the pretty obscure "ostiary." I >>>>> have no firm position or dog in this discussion, licensed or otherwise >>>>> holding any dog credentials, just thinking. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> > On Mar 31, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Dave Longley < >>>>> dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> On 03/31/2016 11:28 AM, Varn, Richard J wrote: >>>>> >> I had one additional thought about the consumer of claims. It >>>>> >> strikes me that the role they are actually playing is gatekeeper. I >>>>> >> got to this after thinking about the various processes in which >>>>> >> claims are used and the reason that someone wants your claim/s is to >>>>> >> evaluate it/them in a context. If the evaluation finds the claims >>>>> >> and attendant and other sources of evidence sufficient, you get a >>>>> >> chance at an opportunity, access to something, a permission, a >>>>> >> benefit, and so on. I am not sure gatekeeper is the best word but >>>>> >> wanted to share the line of thinking and see how it may help. >>>>> > >>>>> > I've had a similar thought, (with terms like "gatekeeper", "guard", >>>>> > "sentinel", etc.) but felt it seemed those terms or many like it had >>>>> too >>>>> > many negative or militaristic connotations. That concept is where the >>>>> > friendlier "approver" term came from. "Verifier" and "authenticator" >>>>> are >>>>> > in a similar vein. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Dave Longley >>>>> > CTO >>>>> > Digital Bazaar, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged >>>>> or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for >>>>> whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this >>>>> e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, >>>>> distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this >>>>> information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail >>>>> is prohibited. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your compliance. >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Shane McCarron >>> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops >>> >> >> > > > -- > Shane McCarron > Projects Manager, Spec-Ops >
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 17:26:30 UTC