- From: Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:43:52 -0600
- To: Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>
- Cc: ba-standard@googlegroups.com, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, openbadges@googlegroups.com
- Message-ID: <CACvcBVpqn=461-qtf2G66gR5bOyZ7G-q+ZAJxi43Fbo9o1vX3w@mail.gmail.com>
Nate, I found I got a lot out of the Internet Identity Workshop. http://iiw.idcommons.net/Main_Page -Brent Shambaugh Website: bshambaugh.org On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net> wrote: > > Hi, Sunny, Erin, Jon: > > (And CC: W3C Credentials Community Group, because this plays into much of > the work that has been going on in that community since before it was even > organized under that name) > > I have been wrestling with this idea for the last year and trying to find > a technically beautiful solution that allows different kinds of identifiers > and allows people to collect badges issued to any of the of their > identifiers. It's a tricky problem, because it has to be solved at both the > standard and the implementation level. > > One cool thing about Open Badges, is that when we find the right way to > structure something in the technology, its correctness comes from the > approach reflecting our values about how the world works in some way. > Identity on the Internet is a thorny tangled thicket touching almost every > service, even those that aren't quite as closely tied to individuals' > identities as credentials are. For identity, I think we need to recognize > that our reasoning about how people use identity online and offline needs > to form the basis for how we allow them to be identified in badges. > > - People have many facets to their identity, and interact with their > communities using differing/overlapping personas. They are constantly > negotiating how they establish their identity in each of their roles in > their networks of learning, socialization, work, and romance. > - Their use of different identifiers in different contexts is an > expression of this negotiation process. > > I think this nets out to some values we should strive to recognize in the > OBI: > > - Issuers should not be expected to know a "canonical" identifier > (i.e. Backpack account email address) for potential earners they know by > other identifiers (i.e. Twitter handles or phone numbers) > - Issuers should be responsible for delivering badges to earners (or > notifying them they may accept a badge) > - Earners and consumers should take responsibility for ensuring the > earner "owns" all the identifiers present as recipients in a collection of > badges presented to the consumer. Badge-aware software, services, and > interested 3rd parties should assist in this process. > > I'm excited to have this conversation, and I want to move a successful > approach into the standard in the next year. (But as we saw with the v1.1 > conversation, it may take significant amounts of research to ensure that we > arrive at a solution that correctly represents the values we hold. And of > course, I'm open to pushback to help better define what values and > consequences of those values need to be represented by the next generation > of OBI recipient identifiers, better than the quick list I sketched out > above). > > I don't know that an extension is ultimately going to be the right way to > do this experimentation and research, however, though I would love people > to step forward and try a few things out. Certainly we could add an > additional "recipient"-like object that could implement these values, but > unless we also provide the standard-compliant original recipient object, > the badges we issue with this extension wouldn't pass the validator, etc. > Would love to hear more thoughts on how we might move forward with research > and experimentation. > > Cheers, > *Nate Otto, Developer* > concentricsky.com > > On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:10:47 AM UTC-8, kruithj wrote: >> >> Hi Everyone: >> >> I've often thought that the backpack should be the place to handle >> multiple identities - so login to the backpack using an @gmail account, >> pair it with your phone number, @school account, or whatever else you think >> is appropriate for that particular collection of badges. That way the >> identity issue is sidestepped by putting it back on the user (who >> ultimately should be in control of this sort of thing). I can think of >> multiple instances where I might want badges to be collected for my >> "professional" identity which is connected to my work or school e-mail, but >> maybe more personal badges associated with my personal e-mail. I think that >> aligns well with Mozilla's ethos. >> >> There almost certainly will be issues with school IDs as these are often >> classified as personal data - not to be shared outside the organization. >> There may be legislation (depending on state/province) that governs how >> this data is shared, and how it can be shared. >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> On 2014-12-16, 9:07 PM, Erin Knight wrote: >> >> Thanks Sunny! This one is really important, especially for things like >> the cities work, where we're dealing with under 13s, as well as kids with >> only temporary school emails that many don't even know how to check. >> >> I'm super interested to understand more about how extensions might help >> here and if anyone has been working on this already. >> >> Couple of additional thoughts: >> >> - Phone number seems like one, especially as we think about expanding >> into SMS badging, etc. >> >> - Also we need to be thinking about the interfaces for how earners >> receive notifications and accept badges through these different identities. >> Some are more obvious, like Twitter and phone number, but others are less >> so, like school ID. >> >> >> - Also, once we can support different types of identifiers, it begs >> the question of how we can associate multiple identifiers with the same >> person. So a badge issued to my phone number, and another to my student ID >> all belong to me and can live in the same Backpack. This might be the >> second phase of this issue, since we need to be able to accept different >> types first, but throwing it out there. >> >> Thanks! >> -E >> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Sunny Lee <three...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> We've made a lot of progress on the extension specification thanks to >>> all your hard work. We're now starting to explore how we might add an >>> endorsement extension and location extension but I wondered, what might an >>> identity extension that attempts to support additional identities beyond >>> email, look like? >>> >>> Are there folks in the community that has been exploring the extension >>> specification to support identities other than email such as twitter handle >>> or school ID? Are there particular identities you'd like to see added as an >>> extension? >>> >>> Sunny >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "BA Standard Working Group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to ba-standard...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Executive Director >> Badge Alliance >> W: http://badgealliance.org >> B: http://erinknight.com >> T: @eknight >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "BA Standard Working Group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to ba-standard...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- >> Learning Technologies Analyst >> MIIETL (McMaster Institute for Innovation and Excellence in Teaching and Learning) >> Mills Memorial Library L520 >> tel: (905) 525-9140 xt. 27497 >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 21:44:21 UTC