- From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:59:05 +0000
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
Hi Joe On second thoughts this is another example of holder acts4 subject if the client subsequently validates the VC. But if the client relies on the recruiter to validate the VC, then the client does not need the VC so it is not an example of a VC use case Comments? David On 19/12/2017 20:38, Joe Andrieu wrote: > Nice. > > For the case of the holder acting for a verifier: a recruiter passing on > verified credentials of a candidate to their client. > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017, at 12:20 PM, David Chadwick wrote: >> Hi Everyone >> >> given that today we discussed the topic of subject not being the holder, >> I thought I would try to classify the different types of VC that a >> verifier might receive, given all the possible relationships between >> subject, holder, issuer and verifier. I attach a jpeg picture that >> depicts my first thoughts on how we might classify the different types >> and/or ways that a VC might be presented to a verifier, in the shape of >> a binary decision tree. I find the diagram useful in that it is trying >> to capture the wide variety of possibilities, and eventually we will >> need to cover them all in either the data model or protocols or both, if >> we are not to leave gaps in our specifications. >> >> If this is worth pursuing further then maybe this should be put on the >> web somewhere, and/or distributed to the CCG as well - please advise. >> >> kind regards >> >> David >> >> Email had 1 attachment: >> >> * >> |SubjectHolder.jpeg| >> 95k (image/jpeg) > > -- > Joe Andrieu, PMP > joe@legreq.com <mailto:joe@legreq.com> > LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS > +1(805)705-8651 > Do what matters. > http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com> > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2017 20:59:32 UTC