Re: Renaming Object Capabilities to Authorization Capabilities?

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, 11:40 Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com wrote:

> Adam,
>
> I agree. I think we're on the same page: the authorization happens at the
> issuance of the capability (ignoring any separation of creation &
> transmittal). Hence, my preference for the past participle "authorized".
> The semantics are that if you have the auth* capability, you can exercise
> the capability because the capability *has* been authorized.
>

This does not fit with my understanding of how the ecosystem could work. I
might receive a credential from an issuer, but authorization couldn't
happen until the presentation of that credential is verified.
So authorization happens at verification.


> Flip it around and it might be clearer. To my reading, an "unauthorized
> capability" would be like stolen car keys. You have the capability, but you
> aren't authorized. In contrast, an "unauthorization capability" reads to me
> that you have the capability to remove authorization, to unauthorize
> something.
>
> The past participle, "authorized" reads as modifying capability, whereas
> the little known FCE nounification [1] of "authorize" into "authorization"
> reads as the capability to do the verb "authorize"
>
> To add another coat of paint to the zCap thing. Since zkp seems to have
> run away with the zzzzs, ACap might work well with either Auth* Capability.
>
> -j
>
> [1]
> http://www.tinyteflteacher.co.uk/learning-english/FCE/word-formation-ion-nouns.html FWIW,
> I knew all about gerunds "-ing" noun forms. I didn't know about FCE until
> Google enlightened me.
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Adam Lake wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> I think I get your point but don't the capabilities exist prior to be
> used? That is, they are Authorization Capabilities until they are used to
> delegate, or authorize, a capability?
>
> I agree that Authorized Capabilities flows off the tongue a bit easier
> than Authorization Capabilities.
>
> Adam
>
> On 11/3/2018 2:10 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
>
> +1/2
>
> I like changing it, but I would suggest Authorized Capabilities.
>
> First, it's easier to say.
>
> Second, it states the actual function more clearly: if you have an
> authorized capability, you're authorized. If you have a zCap, you're
> authorized. Or, in the inevitable vernacular, if you have a capability,
> you're authorized.
>
> "Authorization Capability" reads to me as if the holder has the capability
> to authorize--which is only true if its delegatable and not true in the
> generalized case.
>
> Bikeshed on...
>
> -j
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018, at 9:40 AM, Darrell O'Donnell wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
> *Darrell O'Donnell, P.Eng.*
>
> darrell.odonnell@continuumloop.com
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:24 PM Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com>
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018, 10:14 Jordan, John CITZ:EX <John.Jordan@gov.bc.ca
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> > On Nov 3, 2018, at 08:27, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar..com
> <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is related to the OCAP-LD spec that some of us are working on in
> > this community:
> >
> > https://w3c-ccg.github.io/ocap-ld/
> >
> > Digital Bazaar's engagement with customers over the past several months
> > wrt. the term "Object Capabilities" has resulted in confusion around
> > exactly what an Object Capability is.
> >
> > Some history -- the "Object Capabilities" name was originally picked to
> > differentiate from the "Linux Capabilities" stuff, which really didn't
> > have much to do with capabilities (in the authorization sense). Object
> > Capabilities makes more sense when you're talking about programming
> > languages, but we don't really use it in that sense in this community.
> >
> > I propose we name the specification more appropriately in the hope that
> > the name evokes what we're actually doing with the specification. The
> > technology we're developing in this community specifically has to do
> > with Authorization... capability-based authorization. Thus, I'm
> > suggesting the spec is renamed to "Authorization Capabilities"...
> > shortened to "zCaps" for the cool kids in the community.
> >
> > Also, this is a bike shed discussion, so I fully expect it to get out of
> > hand and for us to have to do a poll like we did for the Verifiable
> > Credentials terminology. Please only suggest names that you're committed
> > to using with your customers (or that you would use with non-technical
> > folks). If we get a bunch of +1s with no strong objections, we're
> > done... and yes, I know that's wishful thinking. :)
> >
> > -- manu
> >
> > --
> > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> > blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
> > https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
> >
>
>
> --
> Joe Andrieu, PMP
>                    joe@legreq.com
> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS
>    +1(805)705-8651
> Do what matters.
>                  http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com>
>
>
>
> --
> Adam Lake
> Director, Business Development
> Digital Bazaar
> Veres.io
> 540-285-0083
>
>
> --
> Joe Andrieu, PMP
>                    joe@legreq.com
> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS
>    +1(805)705-8651
> Do what matters.
>                  http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com>
>
>
>