W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > August 2021

Re: The change from claims to credentials.

From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:43:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA1s49W906H+L2GNC3QcYRgQv6oV-rU-H96t=MLmsryw0K1-8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com>, Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin <snorre@diwala.io>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Ted,
You wrote:

> “Verifiable Credentials ... provide an assurance that a specific Issuer
> emanated some Assertion(s)" But, “Verifiable Claims suggested ... some
> assurance, ... of the *veracity* of the assertions made"

So, is the issue here merely the way that one might misinterpret the word
"Verifiable?" (i.e. It isn't about either the word "claims" or
"credentials.")

If "verifiable," in this context, means to provide a method for
discovering provenance, or an ability to follow a path to the origin of a
claim/credential, would the objections have still arisen if these things
had originally been called "Traceable Claims?" What intended semantic
content is provided by "verificable" that is not be provided by "traceable?"

bob wyman

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 2:36 PM Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
wrote:

> On Aug 9, 2021, at 1:23 PM, Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com> wrote:
>
>
> I would say it was not a focus change as much as a name change to more
> accurately reflect the focus.
>
>
> I would say rather, it was a change to more accurately reflect the
> *achievable*.
>
> “Verifiable Credentials” as specified to date provide an assurance that a
> specific Issuer emanated some Assertion(s) (or “claim(s)”), each comprised
> of one or more Attribute + Value pairs, about a specific Subject.
>
> The WG found that “Verifiable Claims” suggested to readers that we were
> delivering some assurance, or way to make same, of the *veracity* of the
> assertions made, which was and is (and I believe will always be) impossible.
>
> Thus, even though each Verifiable Credential includes Claims, the Claims
> themselves are not Verifiable.
>
> I hope that helps!
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 5:40 AM Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin <
> snorre@diwala.io> wrote:
>
> Hi! I just wonder and want to confirm
>>
>> In early days there was a lot of talk about verifiable claims. But it was
>> a switch over to focus more on verifiable credentials.
>>
>> Do anyone have a briefe paragraph on the history of this focus change?
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin*
>> Co-Founder & CTO, Diwala
>> +47 411 611 94
>> www.diwala.io
>>
>
>
> --
> Brent Zundel, Evernym
> Principle Cryptography Engineer
>
>
> —
>
> A: Yes.                          http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html
> | Q: Are you sure?
> | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>
> Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
> Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Are%20the%20names%20RDF*%20and%20SPARQL*%20worth%20the%20confusion%3F&In-Reply-To=%3CBE38BE66-EB90-439C-AEF7-A7424D394E18%40openlinksw.com%3E&References=%3CBE38BE66-EB90-439C-AEF7-A7424D394E18%40openlinksw.com%3E>
>                              //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
> OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
>          20 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 322, Burlington MA 01803
>      Weblog    -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
>      Community -- https://community.openlinksw.com/
>      LinkedIn  -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
>      Twitter   -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
>      Facebook  -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
> Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 August 2021 20:43:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 9 August 2021 20:43:51 UTC