Re: Questions about DIDs and Identity Credentials

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 18, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Moses Ma <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi gang,
> 
> One issue I've had is an unclear distinction of what is verifiable, the delivery of a credential/claim or the credential/claim itself? Verifiable credentials works because it's usually the issuer, like a University, which is verifying the underlying academic credential. 
> 
> This is not so clear with a verifiable claim... is the delivery being verified (like an IBM "cryptolope") or is the underlying claim being verified by some sort of attestation or number of attestations? Is this claim being made by a third party? Is it a claim that has been authorized for transfer, like the right to pick up a prescription from the pharmacy? Is there a legal attestation attached to the claim? If the claim is being issued by an autonomous software process, such as a smart contract oracle, how do we verify that this oracle has not been hacked?
> 
> For this reason, at my company, we refer to "verifiable claims" as "trust objects". They may or may not be "verified" by a verified source, they may or may not be backed up with a legal attestation, they may or may not whatever. These "atomic trust markers and datapoints" can be aggregated via a probabilistic convolution to assess an overall trustability assessment of a user that holds the DID to which these objects/claims are associated.
> 
> Anyway, my two cents...
> 
> Moses
> 
> PS, it was fun working with y'all in Toronto!
> 
> PPS, I have an observation based on months of participation in this group that I'd like to share, as an "innovation coach". This group does a pretty good job of co-inspiring ideation, but I have noticed a persistent level of negative feedback for proffered suggestions. I wanted to urge everyone here to provide ONLY positive feedback

While this sounds like a good idea.

This community has been thriving for a long time, in part because we are critical of each other. These critiques are part of how we bond, connect and challenge each other to do better.

I find the east coast cultures what suppress critique, to “be nice”, “save face”, have people not feel uncomfortable stifling and toxic in their own way.

I agree things can go far the other way. To extreme and harsh criticism that is relentless. Also toxic.

I don’t think that is our dynamic.

- Kaliya 



> for the contribution of ideas, instead of ragging on why it won't work. 
> 
> Even if you dislike an idea, a useful rule-of-thumb from improvisational comedy is called "Yes... and". Every participant should accept what another participant has stated ("yes") and then expand on that line of thinking ("and"). It is also used in business and other organizations as a principle that improves the effectiveness of the brainstorming process, fosters effective communication, and encourages the free sharing of ideas.
> 
> Here's an article I wrote about why this is important: 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-tao-innovation/201210/why-many-brainstorms-suck
> 
> 
> 
>> On 10/2/18 10:33 AM, Dave Longley wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2018 09:18 AM, Donghwan Kim wrote: 
>>> Hi there, 
>>> 
>>> First of all a lot of thanks for writing the specifications. The followings are my questions about DIDs and Identity Credentials. 
>>> 
>>> 1. What is the difference or relationship between Identity Credentials [1], Verifiable Credentials [2], and Verifiable Claims [3]? I haven't read all the specifications thoroughly yet but they all seem to deal with the same thing. 
>> 
>> They all refer to the same thing. The group has struggled with 
>> terminology and settled on "Verifiable Credentials". 
>> 
>> "Identity Credentials" was the precursor to "Verifiable Credentials", so 
>> it is just a historical document that eventually became "Verifiable 
>> Credentials". "Verifiable Claims" is another name for "Verifiable 
>> Credentials" and the link you provided refers to the use cases document 
>> that various specs (like the VC data model) are being created to support.       
> 
> -- 
> <FLClogo.png>
> Moses Ma | Managing Partner
> 
> moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com | moses.ma@sparkchaincapital.com | moses@ngenven.com
> 
> v+1.415.568.1068 | skype mosesma | linktr.ee/moses.tao
> 
> FutureLab provides strategy, ideation and technology for breakthrough innovation and third generation blockchains.
> 
> Learn more at www.futurelabconsulting.com. For calendar invites, please cc: mosesma@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> Or whet your appetite by reading Agile Innovation | Blockchain Design Sprint | my blog at psychologytoday.com.
>