Re: Subject Holder Relationship

Here's where I was thinking...

In the VRM conversation, the question of who works for whom was resolved
by following the money.
The subject of the credential is the candidate.
The recruiter is holder.
The prospective employer is the verifier.

The employer is paying the recruiter to find them qualified candidates.
The employer reviews and verifies any credentials they receive before
scheduling an interview. Hence, the recruiter is working for the
employer and therefore, the holder is acting for the verifier.
I think that matches your chart.

-j

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017, at 12:59 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
> 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>>> 
>> 
> 

--
Joe Andrieu, PMP
joe@legreq.comLEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS
+1(805)705-8651Do what matters.
http://legreq.com[1]


Links:

  1. http://www.legendaryrequirements.com