- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:00:28 +0000
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1ePo17V6hQK2fY6unu3OKjH=kY2gihBbZM3UsApaVsAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Note:. Two document versions are being circulated incorporating the use of ROLE_A through to C or alternatively D, In which the embodiment of the apparatus may confuse the roles in which the notation of names has been provided. Note 2: does the document have some sort of "same origin" rule on it? Ie: is it necessarily served up from a web location that is the same in some way as the identifier notating the identity / subject outlined in the doc. Kinda similar to TimBLs / early WebID related symmetrical foaf concepts? Note 3: Re: "inspector" I was looking at due diligence law https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/due-diligence/ The consumer of the credential will most often be seeking the instrument for some sort of check or benefit made from gaining access to the doc. Reasonable they've got a responsibility at times to ask for the information that will be contained in them. So. In some ways they may seem like a checkpoint, or reviewer. Could also be a decoder. Ie: - Encoder - (Authorised?) Store - Decoder Tim.h. On Tue., 27 Jun. 2017, 2:28 am Manu Sporny, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > I have updated the terminology playground with the latest options (be > sure to shift-reload): > > https://vcwg-terminology-playground.firebaseapp.com/ > > The poll has also been updated with the latest options: > > https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/5724357032673280?p=1 > > Important changes: > > * An additional role has been added for "Subject". This is an attempt > to address Steven Rowat, Dave Longley, and David Chadwick (among > others') concerns around split roles (Subject/Presenter). > > * The number of options for ROLE_C has become so large that it will > most likely lead to bad polling results. I suggest that we start > aggressively culling the ROLE_C list before the vote starts > tomorrow. We should get some strong arguments against roles that you > feel should not be in the running. > > As a reminder, this is how we suggested that the poll is conducted last > week (with added detail): > > 1. We finalize the poll during the VCWG call tomorrow. For ROLE_C, > we will hopefully remove options that at least 25% of folks don't > think are in their personal top 5 list. > 2. The poll will run for seven days and close 5pm ET July 4th. > 3. Anyone that has educated themselves on the options should vote. If > you haven't been following at least one of: the issues, mailing list > discussion, or the calls, please don't vote. For example, please > don't circulate the poll to your work colleagues that don't > participate in the WG or CG and ask them to vote. > 4. If you vote, you are asked to vote in an individual capacity and not > on behalf of your organization. We want terminology that is both > correct and that will immediately resonate with readers. > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built > http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/ > >
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 17:01:14 UTC