- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:09:30 -0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
On 06/26/2017 11:57 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 06/23/2017 05:12 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote: >> So, fwiw, I'm leaning toward issuer, claimant, and verifier, > > +1, that feels closer to what we want than "Holder" and "Inspector". > > While claimant is a bit awkward (not used very commonly in everyday > conversation), it fits the various modes of operation more > accurately than "Holder". > > For example... > > The Claimant: > > * sometimes is the Subject of the Claims, * sometimes is the Guardian > of the Subject, * may be the Recipient of the Claims (but not > always), * may be a Prover - they don't share the Claims, but prove > they exist, * may be the Owner of the claims, but not always * may > Present the claims, either directly or indirectly > > "The Claimant is the entity that asserts a claim to a Verifier (e.g. > I am asserting I can drive because the DMV says that I passed my > driving test OR I'm booking a rental car for my colleague and here is > their driver's license, which they authorized me to share with you)" > > That language feels like it sticks together better than what we have > been doing over the past several weeks. It seems more confusing to me. The Issuer is the one making the claim about a Subject and that's how it reads to me in the data model as well. That someone can share this claim with an Inspector who can then check its authenticity is the main feature of Verifiable Claims -- but it doesn't change the fact about who has made the claim. So using "Claimant" to name a party that isn't actually the one making the claim -- but rather to name the party that is saying: "This other third party made this claim about me" seems to add confusion. -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc. http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 16:09:58 UTC