- From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:37:53 +0000
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
On 20/12/2017 08:07, =Drummond Reed wrote: > Excellent analysis, Joe. Seems right on. It's almost finding a new > element that fits into a missing hold in the periodic table. Perhaps it could be a compound with the same molecular weight as the missing element :-) > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com > <mailto:joe@joeandrieu.com>> wrote: Good analysis, but I think the recruiter is still working on behalf of the subject. The subject sends their VCs to the recruiter and asks (or agrees to) the recruiter sending them to the employer on his/her behalf. The subject has also probably signed a contract with, or agreed to the terms of business of the recruiter (including privacy/disclosure rules). The recruiter may have also withheld some information back such as the name or contact details of the subject. So whilst it is true that the recruiter is being paid by the employer, the recruiter is in fact acting on behalf of both parties. Hence my reference to a compound in reply to Drummond :-) But this is definitely an interesting VC use case, and clearly the employer will need to validate that the communication is coming from the recruiter and not from any random holder. So I will add it as an example of acts4 verifier kind regards David > > __ > 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> >> <mailto:joe@legreq.com> >> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS >> >> +1(805)705-8651 <tel:(805)%20705-8651> >> Do what matters. >> >> http://legreq.com >> <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com >> <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com>> >> >> >> > > -- > Joe Andrieu, PMP > joe@legreq.com <mailto:joe@legreq.com> > LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS > +1(805)705-8651 <tel:(805)%20705-8651> > Do what matters. > http://legreq.com > <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 09:38:20 UTC