- From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:21:54 +0100
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
or alternatively On 27/06/2017 00:06, Joe Andrieu wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017, at 06:59 PM, David Chadwick wrote: >> Wouldnt this be solved by calling VCs verifiable credentials rather than >> claims and removing the word claim from our vocabulary. > > + to "Issuers create credentials" which contain verifiable claims. issuers create credentials which contain statements that can be verified > > That feeds the downstream: > * claimants use claims by bundling them into entity profiles, claimants may bundle together statements into entity profiles > * then claimants claim the benefits of said claims by presenting entity > profiles to inspectors/verifiers/relying-parties. claimants use credentials to claim benefits from inspectors.... > > What is "verifiable" however is still the claim: issued by issuers, what is verifiable is the statement made by the issuer So you see, with a little positive will it is feasible to remove any notion of the credential containing a claim The Issuer is in fact making a statement, so why call it a claim? A driving license is a not a claim, it is a credential containing statements of fact (that you are entitled to drive) So let us get rid of the term 'claim' as it leads to all sort of mis-interpretations. In the real world the documents that we want to replace with VCs are all statements of fact made by issuers. None of them are claims. No-one would call a membership card, passport, credit card or any such thing a claim. So neither should we. regards David > verified by inspectors/verifiers/relying-parties. > > So -1 for changing VCs to verifiable credentials. > > -j > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017, at 06:59 PM, David Chadwick wrote: >> Wouldnt this be solved by calling VCs verifiable credentials rather than >> claims and removing the word claim from our vocabulary. >> >> regards >> >> David >> >> On 26/06/2017 23:33, Steven Rowat wrote: >> >> On 2017-06-26 3:00 PM, David Chadwick wrote: >> >> >> >> On 26/06/2017 16:59, Dave Longley wrote: >> >> A potential problem with claimant is that the entity that >> actually makes >> the claim is the issuer. >> >> >> You are misinterpreting the word 'makes' in your sentence >> above. In the >> various dictionary definitions of claimant, 'makes a claim' is >> used to >> denote 'asking for something', not 'manufacturing' or >> 'producing' a >> claim, which is your semantic >> >> >> >> I believe that in both this and your accompanying email, David, >> with the >> definitions of 'claimant' showing that this can't be the person who >> actually produces the claim, you are correct. >> >> But I believe the problem with using 'Claimant', capital 'C', in the >> 'Holder/Presenter...' role is that there is already, unless we change >> this too, a Claim, capital 'C', that **is** produced by the Issuer. >> >> If we used 'Claimant', then we'd be in the position of having: >> Person A, the Claimant, 'makes a claim' that the Claim made by the >> Issuer is correct. >> >> If would force us to have 'making a claim' (colloquially) apply to >> both >> roles. >> >> That seems an unavoidable byproduct of having the official word >> 'Claim' >> for what's being produced by the Issuer. >> >> I believe this would cause unnecessary confusion and should be >> avoided. >> >> Steven >> >> >> regards >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Joe Andrieu, PMP > joe@joeandrieu.com <mailto:joe@joeandrieu.com> > +1(805)705-8651 > http://blog.joeandrieu.com >
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 23:22:26 UTC