- From: Stone, Matt <matt.stone@pearson.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:38:22 -0600
- To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+w1=RQgR5LqLLyCBr_26MF0OhxnW7EPxKQxGOnBJHQPDdJFPg@mail.gmail.com>
i'm also generally -1 on "sharer" and "claimant" based on the arguments in this thread. ===== Matt Stone 501-291-1599 On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote: > On 2017-06-26 10:52 AM, Dave Longley wrote: > >> On 06/26/2017 01:34 PM, Steven Rowat wrote: >> >>> On 2017-06-26 9:27 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: >>> >>>> * 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. >>>> >>> >>> Here's my attempt to cull new Role C (the Holder/Presenter/... list) : >>> >>> ... >>> >>> -1 SHARER IMO it seems to imply a specific role of 'distributing' >>> the claim. Maybe this is just baggage from other OS uses in my case, >>> but I wouldn't mind if it was removed from the list. >>> >> >> I think that may actually be the only common purpose for this particular >> role given the various use cases where it appears in different forms. >> >> The most fundamental reason we have that role, IMO, is to demonstrate >> that the entity that made the claim (Issuer) does not have to be the one >> sharing the claim with the relying party (Inspector). That's the whole >> point: >> >> Party A can make a claim that party B can share with party C such >> that party C trusts it came from A -- without trust in party B. >> >> That's the strength of verifiable claims; you don't need party A to be >> the one who hands the claim over to party C. >> > > That's a strong argument, but after trying various combinations on the > poll page, I still think Sharer lacks something, which is the > self-sovereign aspect. > > The way the poll page is set up, the word we choose has to do for both > cases where the role is split and where it's not. I think Sharer is > especially not ideal when the Subject and the Holder/Presenter/...Sharer > are the same person. > > Example, plugging in 'Sharer', 'Presenter', and 'Holder' to compare them: > > "A(n) Sharer may present Claims directly to a Verifier. For example, > providing a digital driver’s license directly to a Verifier." > > "A(n) Presenter may present Claims directly to a Verifier. For example, > providing a digital driver’s license directly to a Verifier. " > > "A(n) Holder may present Claims directly to a Verifier. For example, > providing a digital driver’s license directly to a Verifier. " > > To rephrase these, if I have my own driver's license, then I am either: > The Presenter of it > The Holder of it > The Sharer of it > > I feel that Sharer falls down in this example; the other two seem better, > especially Holder. > > The other main side of the split is if I'm authorized to be my niece's > legal guardian. The certificate that allows me that, the claim, I can then > be: > > The Presenter of it > The Holder of it > The Sharer of it > > Here they're closer, but again I'd prefer Holder. > > To me Sharer doesn't convey the idea that there's authorization in the > Role to care for the Subject's data. I believe Holder does, and Presenter > does but less so. Not so Sharer. > > Steven > >
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 19:38:55 UTC