[EDITOR'S DRAFT] Demonstration of Support for Verifiable Claims Working Group

During May 2016, the Verifiable Claims Task Force performed a survey among 91 organizations to determine if the Verifiable Claims Working Group proposal had industry support. The response rate to the informal review of the Verifiable Claims work was 62% (high for an optional survey), with 56 organizations responding to the survey.

A summary of the findings follow, with detailed aggregate statistics for each question and response throughout the rest of this document. Raw data is available as HTML and CSV.

Summary of Findings

Negative Responses to the Work (in general)

Positive Responses Categorized by Organizational Size

Problem Statement

The Verifiable Claims Problem Statement is Accurate
Option Count
Strongly Agree 33
Mostly Agree 19
Neutral 3
Mostly Disagree 0
Strongly Disagree 0
  • Disagree on how problem is stated, presumes user-centric design.


The Goals proposed by the Verifiable Claims work are good goals to pursue
Option Count
Strongly Agree 36
Mostly Agree 18
Neutral 2
Mostly Disagree 0
Strongly Disagree 0
Other 0

Scope of Work

The Scope of Work and Deliverables would help address the Problem Statement
Option Count
Strongly Agree 10
Mostly Agree 39
Neutral 3
Mostly Disagree 2
Strongly Disagree 0
  • I'm inclined to say Strongly Agree, though i cannot for sure as I haven't reviewed in deep detail.
  • Difficult to answer. Personally I think it looks OK, but I am not a specialist in related W3C work

Use Cases

My organizations verifiable claims problems would be addressed if the use cases in the Use Cases document were addressed
Option Count
Strongly Agree 11
Mostly Agree 25
Neutral 12
Mostly Disagree 2
Strongly Disagree 1
  • not in a position to give an answer
  • Wouldn't solve the requirement to present a government credential upon sign-up to telco service, otherwise many use cases served well
  • We are interested in the environment made possible by a rich client oriented claims
  • Unknown impact for us.
  • Not Applicable


My organization would participate in the following way if a Verifiable Claims Working Group were to materialize at W3C
Option Count
Will participate, W3C Member 15
Will participate by joining W3C 10
Will participate (reviews), but won't join W3C 8
Will NOT participate, W3C Member 3
Will NOT participate, not W3C member 1
  • It's complicated
  • depends on who hires me. If just myself then would perform periodic reviews
  • Would participate if I have capacity
  • My company is an active IDPF member and intends to be actively involved in new work in W3C that is EPUB-related.
  • we expect to become a W3C member, and would participate
  • We would participate, but mostly observing
  • I will participate in the work as an independent expert as I am not sure the University will pay the annual membership
  • As an Invited Expert to the W3C I would participate
  • Cannot predict participation
  • Participation unpredictable
  • Unknown as of yet
  • We are a member and would have to decide IF we participate
  • We are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participate
  • We will soon be a W3C member and WOULD participate
  • Not a W3C member, but would consider joining and participating

Reasons for Not Participating

If your organization would NOT participate, what changes would we have to make to the draft charter to change your mind?


Is there any other input that you have on the Verifiable Claims Draft Charter?