Re: The change from claims to credentials.

Thanks alot for these feedbacks, helps alot.
For context, we were providing feedback to the AU draft for interoperable
identity across Africa:
https://africaunion-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/mihretw_africa-union_org/EdsLHszS3LpAuNyYkHaBSJIBirszQhdhkGrPqwdiM7_SZg?rtime=0F58NaNS2Ug

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 10:43 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>

-- 

*Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin*
Co-Founder & CTO, Diwala
+47 411 611 94
www.diwala.io