W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > August 2019

Re: Identity Hubs and Agents

From: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 22:07:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CACrqygDN9ufouJcN-k7RO9LzsHG+qT3=Zi0+pax8M67cn=iZ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:56 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>

> Please review the existing terminology before introducing new terms.
>> https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-rfcs/tree/master/concepts/0004-agents#categorizing-agents

Please don’t call this “existing terminology”. The file you link to has 4
contributors yet almost all the commits are by you. It supercedes a
document 100% written by you. There was no obvious consensus-driven process
to define this terminology despite the label "accepted", and even if there
was it was defined by a different community. You can’t unilaterally say
that this is “existing terminology” without larger buy-in all the different
communities involved through the use of some form of participatory process.

I worry that by taking the approach that "this terminology already is
defined" hurts your advocacy and the success of your ideas. A community
must feel engaged to commit to collaborating with you, and part of that
very human process is the creation of a Shared Language. By denying the
need for this emergence, fewer people will join you.

I wrote about this some time ago at
the key quote is:

“Every time a new group of people meet together — whether in a team, in a
marketplace, or in a community — one of the first activities they must do
together is create a shared language. They do this in order to communicate
more effectively together, to put a context on the words that they have in
common, to construct a shared understanding in their minds based both on
available information and their individual diversity of experience.

Don't forget that the linguistic root of communication is the Latin verb
commūnĭco  — which doesn't mean "to communicate" but instead means "to
share something with someone, to take or receive a part of, to partake, to
participate in". Thus the creation of a shared language takes us to the
roots of communication.

Without taking the time time to create shared language, groups have a
difficult time forging mutual trust. Without a shared language there will
be no clarity on mutual goals — whether it involves working together,
transacting a trade, or creating something. Without a shared language
commitments can be hard to make, and if misunderstood can lead to
disagreements. These group formation phases — trust building, goal
clarification, and commitment — are essential.”

This is what the CCG and RWOT do: help people build trust by helping them
create Shared Languages together. Yes, sometimes creating a Shared Language
can be painful birth, but the outcomes can be quite powerful.

— Christopher Allen

P.S. If you are interested, I have a followup blog post on a related topic:

Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2019 05:08:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:57 UTC