Re: Kim Cameron's Laws of Identity

On Jan 22, 2010, at 2:14 AM, Alexander Korth wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> -1 (minus) need to come up with new term. The term is already very  
> widely accepted in both, industry and science. There won't be any  
> benefits from renaming the term.

the term "identity" means many things and it is accepted in industry  
when not used alone for a specific thing you decide to define (when  
other people have a different definition.


The specific way that "identity" is defined in the paper as
> "This one site can contain the aggregated of all the users  
> information from multiple personae.  The person (or user) has  
> control over what aspects are shared in what locations"

is NOT what is meant by the term IdP - that is the provider/host of AN  
(one) identifier that belongs to a person not the complete total of  
all identities/identifiers + claims (profile fields) that they have on  
the web.

You need to be clear what you mean by "identity" notice the other term  
you mention is "Identity PROVIDER" it is used in conduction with  
another term that helps it be at least somewhat specific in what it is  
referring to.

You could go with something like "master IdP" or "uber-IdP" or some  
other "complete identity host" (cause shoudln't the user/person be  
able to move this to different places) - what ever you do please don't  
use the word "identity" by itself - that will cause problems.

Just thoughts.
-Kaliya



> The problem of having several profiles will not diminish but change  
> significantly over the next few years:
> People will choose one main profile which is hosted by an identity  
> provider. That provider most of the times will be one that they  
> trust most and/or that does already have loads of profile  
> information about the user anyways. There will be a tipping point  
> where the opening to these profile data from the provider side will  
> be so significant that service providers will choose to not any more  
> implement an autarkic user management - this is the separation of  
> service and identity management. There are many visions towards  
> this, including my own [1,2,3].
> When this happens, there won't be many equivalent and proprietary  
> profile providers any more but *the* one main identity provider per  
> user. These providers will have an agreed set of interfaces to read  
> (and write) data. This is the enabler for a new generation of user- 
> centric profile management features, incl. control over information  
> reach, deletion of information etc.
> The terms identity and identity provider (IdP) are widely accepted  
> and used. To me, it emphasizes a service's focus on identities as  
> such which I understand as a much higher sophisticated profile from  
> both, the user model quality and the management feature set point of  
> view.
>
> Cheers,
> Alexander Korth
>
> Managing Director of Make Customers Friends (http://www.makecustomersfriends.com 
> )
>
> [1] Marc Canter's Open Mesh http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/how-to-build-the-open-mesh/
> [2] Dick Hardt's legendary and brilliant because 4 yrs old Identity  
> 2.0 talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrpajcAgR1E
> [3] My Web of Identities, which is kind of a LinkedData amongst IdPs  
> to look up ppl data http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_of_identities_making_machine-accessible_people_data.php
>
> On 22.01.2010, at 05:08, Renato Iannella wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Jan 2010, at 20:19, Yuk Hui wrote:
>>
>>> if the identity is an aggregated profiles + selected + verified,  
>>> then this seems to be much more complicated, for example I have  
>>> three profiles (e.g. facebook, twitter, youtube) with different  
>>> information, what will be this unique identity then?
>>
>>
>> This is probably why "Identity" is the wrong term....
>>
>> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>> NICTA
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Alexander Korth
> www.twitter.com/alexkorth
>
>