Sec 2. “Holder” is a confusing name

[Fak3]

Hi. Maybe this issue is caused by my poor english, but I find "Holder" a slightly confusing term as it is not very clear to me, what "to hold a claim" could mean in this context. May "Claimer" be a better word here? Or maybe someone could come up with even more definite term?

[Fak3]

OTOH "Claimer" could be confused with "Issuer"...

[jandrieu]

This is a longstanding challenge, naming the parties. We've had at least one vote after I joined the conversation on terminology. I expect we'll need additional discussion as new people spin up to the group conversation.

The current entity definitions:

Issuer -- The entity that creates a claim and associates it with a particular subject.
Inspector -- The entity verifying a claim about a given subject.
Subject -- The entity about whom a claim is issued.
Holder -- The entity who controls a particular claim. Often the subject of the claim, but not always. For example, the subject of a claim might be a pet who has received a vaccination. The holder of that claim is likely the pet's owner, not the pet. A holder is typically the initiator of the transmission of a claim.

This definition aligns "holder" with "controller", but what control means is unclear. The amount of control that a subject should have over identifying information is an open question, generally. It is also distinct from the control an issuer has if a claim is revocable.

To me, "Presenter" feels like it fits with most of the use cases we are addressing. The presenter is the one presenting a claim to an inspector and asserting its relevance to the current interaction. Typically the presenter is saying "this claim is about me." The inspector and presenter could also be talking about someone else, e.g., a child, in which case, the presenter is saying "this claim is about the child."

In either case, the presenter/holder is presenting a claim, asserting that the claim applies to a common subject.

Unfortunately, neither "presenter" nor "holder" fit well when the presenter/holder is moving a claim from one credential repository to another. One might imagine the repositories are holding the claim given the physical metaphor of "moving" the claim from one place to another.

I find this also confusing if the claim itself is never held by the presenter/holder, but merely referenced by a URL, address, or other unique ID. If the "holder" never actually "holds" the claim itself--and my understanding is that asserting claims by reference is an expected transaction--then "holder" seems a bit off.

[stonematt]

I read both 'Holder' and 'Presenter' as "responsible party" If my spouse has a Power of Attorney for me, I'm the subject (still with rights) and she 'Holds' the Power of Attorney which grants certain rights to her to act on my behalf.

The term Holder may not be perfect, but barring any protests from the group, I suggest we close this issue and continue to use Holder.

[Fak3]

Personally I like 'Presenter' a lot more.

With my poor english - to 'Hold' something suggests that you physically have the item at hand, which is not really the case, as in vc-model your claims are physically 'held' by the (hosting) service provider.

[jandrieu]

This should be closed. We had an extended discussion in meetings and in issue 56 of the data model w3c/vc-data-model#56 . The result was a poll that gave the editors guidance for the current language. See the https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model for more.

[Fak3]

@jandrieu, thanks, the discussion helped me to discover more usecases i was unaware of.
But the terminology throughout the docs is still a bit confusing. Recently it was brought up again in the related issue: w3c/vc-data-model#80

[stonematt]

Terminology discussions are always challenging. The working group spent significant time reviewing and selecting these terms. This represents the consensus of the group.