- From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 08:32:43 +0100
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
On 02/06/2017 19:17, Joe Andrieu wrote: > For example, I may learn of a serial killer in my neighborhood and > without identifying that as a reason, reschedule an event that was to > occur locally to a far away location. While I am acting on the > information associated with a given identity, I'm not authorizing > anything with respect to the serial killer. He/she remains completely > unidentified in my subsequent actions and communications and I haven't > authorized any actions directly related impacting them. Thinking about this again overnight, I would say that it is a spurious example. What is the VC, who is the holder, who is the issuer, and who is the inspector? Which role does the serial killer play? It seems to me, that you are the inspector, who receives the VC from a trusted issuer (maybe the police or the newspaper), and then decide how to act as a result of this. But your subsequent actions are not part of the VC model as far as I am aware, and are therefore out of scope. regards David
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2017 07:33:15 UTC