> > Note that "associate claims with" does not mean "the claims are about".
>
> I've actually been reading some philosophy of language
> recently, but I still can't figure out what you mean by this.
I think in common usage the latter is a more specific relationship than the
former. "Associate" is pretty vague, with one definition being "To connect
or join together; combine."
Clearly the statements are always about the subject. But they are not always
about the confirming/attesting entity, even if they are associated with it
based on the confirmation method.
However I must admit the formal definition of "about" is not significantly
different than "associated". I don't have a better suggestion.
I think it's worth asking if anybody even understands the distinction being
made here. If not, maybe we should just use the word "impersonation", define
it technically, and be done with this game-playing. This is after all
impersonation and one-hop delegation.
> But actually what I want to express concern about is the word "claims".
I was using it because I was incorporating Ron's text, but "statements" is
fine by me.
-- Scott
