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

Re: WoN Re: Public consultation on EU digital principles

From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:08:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA1s49URDAqr-3yovw7S4XRQEDZvg-v4m4T3mersvuPuqigAaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@verifiablecredentials.info>
Cc: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
David Chadwick wrote:

> Regardless of what you call them (deny, black, block) they are still
> flawed and should not be relied upon as they are usually trivial to bypass.

An ability to "bypass" a black-list is only relevant in an application
which relies on such lists being complete. However, even incomplete lists
can provide value in many contexts. For instance, some authority might
construct a list of "members of the press." However, I might wish to
comment on that list by saying that I consider some of them to be more
advocates clothed in the trappings of the press rather than being actual
press. In this case, I might build a list whose members are those whose
"pressness" I think should be denied, even if they have credentials issued
by some otherwise accepted authority. As long as I don't declare that my
blacklist is complete, some folk might find the list to be useful. Others
might ignore it. So be it.

In general, I think there should be a well-known mechanism for commenting
on claims that are made or implied by some other issuers' VCs. A
"blacklist" is one way to do so. Mechanisms with greater expressive
richness would be appreciated as well.

How can or should I comment on a VC issued by someone else? What mechanisms
are provided to do so?

bob wyman
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2021 20:08:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:21 UTC