This group is locked. No changes can be made to the group while it is locked.
Re: Example Immunoglobulin Detection Test Credential
Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@...>
Regarding Eric's comments about identifying the subject: The strategy proposed in the schemas doc in a couple places [1, 2] is to provide just enough information about the holder to let them be linked to other credentials (physical or digital/VC) that provide strong identification as needed. Orie's example is mostly aligned with this proposal, though its birthdate + photo may be a little more than is needed. The reasoning behind this is that a lab isn't going to be authoritative about facts of birth, and probably isn't going to take a photo of each test subject, but probably will check a stronger form of ID when the test sample is submitted -- so whatever form of ID they check, they need to embed just enough info about the holder in their results to allow the holder to present the same strong identification later. An example of how this could be tweaked to embody the proposal a little better might be to remove the photo and birthdate fields, and to add the following two fields: presentedIDType: a picklist with strings such as "drivers license", "passport", "national ID card", etc presentedIDNumber: the number from whatever strong identification the test subject supplied when submitting the sample Now it becomes clear how Eric can explain the trust dynamics to a harried government official: "The testing regime has the same trust dynamics as our national ID card/passport/driver's licenses, because that form of ID has to be used to submit a sample, and the same ID has to be used when presenting the test results." On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:58 AM Eric Welton (Korsimoro) <eric@...> wrote:
|
|