Re: Data model abstract

is terminology from a PERSONS point of view; or is it designed to be
'SERVICE-ORIENTATED' ? (ie: service providers point of view)...?

I think the term 'identity' has a different meaning pending the decision
made about this; and, i think as part of the linguistics - it's perhaps
important to state the position as it makes a difference when defining the
use of the term 'identity' as it is interpreted by the human for which it
is applied....

IE:

 A Loyalty Card Provider will have an 'identity' for you, but it is not
your identity - is is the persona known to the Loyalty Card Provider about
you, that they may call your 'identity'.  YET; through the use of
linked-data - their 'identity' (that they may claim to hold value to them
as a counterpart of their IP) may or may not enable a person to decouple
their 'persona' and therefore the 'identity' may indeed have a great deal
of information attached to it.

Ie:  Login via Facebook + provide permissions - PLUS download the mobile
app + provide device permissions, etc.

I think these decisions have a great deal of impact on the capacities
in-future to support other concepts such as 'privacy' and how that relates
to natural legal entities...

Tim.H.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 at 11:32 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Let me answer this question from my current position of studies into the
> field.
>
> People can only really have one real identity, which relates in-turn to
> their existence on the planet.  However people have multiple persona and
> therein an array of varied considerations relate to a lack of
> desire/capability to fully record what i consider 'the consciousness
> algorithm'.  The effect of Silos, 'big data' and an array of other facets
> are indeed producing an enormous amount of data - that by way of semantic
> web / linked-data, that is 'service centric' in design - this data is often
> available for sale between incorporated entities whom natural legal
> entities freely provide that data to, often without consideration.
>
> So - whilst we exist as one 'being', the notion of multiple identities is
> often forged as a means to protect from asymmetrical values established by
> way of 'free' service-centric services that fail to furnish 'natural legal
> entities' (aka: users / subjects / products) principle rights in relation
> to the operation of the service; that is operated by a commercial
> organisation who has shareholders/stakeholders - and the whole thing gets
> quite messy...
>
> So.
>
> If you are issued an array of 'credentials' or 'secure 'linkable'
> documents' that say you own things, you've done things, etc.  The
> likelihood is that you do actually want to relate that to you.
>
> BUT; because the world is not perfect; and that in all likelihood, you do
> not have similar legal capacities to that of a incorporated legal entity
> whom you may feel vulnerable; the rights of self-protection include rights
> of privacy amongst others.
>
> Therein; what we're actually looking for IMHO is the ability for
> self-determination - in a manner consistent with UN Human Rights principles
> and local 'choice of law' related 'rule of law' stuff - for Identity and
> Identity related claims; and, the ability to mask identity by way of
> persona or indeed 'pseudo-anonymity'.   I'm sure some companies will make
> it very easy to 'freely' reduce the anonymity layers, much as facebook does
> today, as to collect more data for sale.  Some of this is not part of our
> standards work but rather related work that needs to be addressed somehow.
>  with or without open-standards, i do not see this freight-train stopping
> or companies making them - going out of business...
>
> So, the ability for 'self sovereign' or 'human centric (web)' or 'right to
> self-determination' / compatibility with non-web systems of civic
> participation / law (meaning, the ability to be a digital Australian
> Citizen for the purposes of my data storage and use, for instance) in-turn
> seemingly provides the capacity to support persona in a way that
> service-centric infrastructure solutions would not lend themselves to as
> easily; yet, these things IMHO extend beyond the production of a
> technological means in which to deploy alternative architectures for
> data-solutions to the means in which any successful effect to produce
> tooling is used by operators.
>
> This is much the same as 'linked-data' technologies themselves.
>
> Whether someone chooses to present 'proofing' information or not, should
> really be upto them and 'rule of law' in the territory.  Equally, if
> someone has driven my car and been speeding - i should be able to use
> technological evidence to prove i wasn't driving the car as to support
> 'rule of law'; or, if a government employee breaks the law in the course of
> their duty causing harm to me - they should be accountable for their
> actions rather than leaving the problem for increased taxpayers expense in
> other areas, by necessarily treating the symptoms caused to another by a
> would-be semi- legally immune human, due to business systems established in
> relation to that human's work environment as a government employee.
>
> Yet, some of that may be considered ideological / verging on 'religious'
> belief... not sure...
>
> HOWEVER - HAVING SAID THAT!!~!!
>
> I think it's important to be able to produce logical derivative
> credentials for use by persona.  A birth certificate/credential can be used
> to derive whether or not someone is over 18/21 without giving all the
> details otherwise displayed in the birth certificate.
>
> Similarly a postal address can be used to say what country, state or
> suburb a person lives in.
>
> The details held within credentials should not be automatically provided
> for a simple request.  The design-strategy for how these documents are
> produced IMHO should continue to consider different ways in which the
> cryptography methods could be supported by simple logic, whether via
> semantic-resources (ie: lowering the resolution of GPS Point-data) or
> otherwise.
>
> SUMMARY
> My consideration about 'human centric' is to strip what we've
> sociologically created in considering the underlying principles /
> foundations to what we need to design for an identity related eco-system.
> Stripping it all away - we're left with humans communicating & making
> decisions.  Therein; when applying this 'human centric web' concept to the
> problem-area - what we're trying to do is essentially provide means to
> cryptographically support the electronic communication of evidence or
> secured electronic documents that are machine readable; as to improve
> support for the means in which a human communicates with others in a fair
> way, that is also more capable of being perceived as trust-worthy or
> honest.
>
> What people do with it, and how they present themselves - what they choose
> to do - is kinda up-to the individual, and the persona that person chooses
> to narrate as part of their temporal existence.   Underneath it all; Time
> is a constant.  We're able to play a bit with the amount of 'mass' we
> affect using the most efficient use of energy.
>
> computationally these things can end-up being rather simple for machines,
> so it's best, IMHO, we keep it real, as humans...
>
> Tim.H.
>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 at 01:27 David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 13/06/2016 15:34, Dave Longley wrote:
>> > On 06/12/2016 03:52 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
>> >> I would like to suggest a change to the latest data model document
>> >> http://opencreds.org/specs/source/claims-data-model/
>> >>
>> >> Specifically, the document abstract currently says
>> >>
>> >> A TBD credential is a set of claims made by an entity about an
>> >> identity. A TBD credential may refer to a qualification, achievement,
>> >> quality, or other information about an identity such as a name,
>> >> government ID, home address, or university degree that typically
>> >> indicates suitability.
>> >>
>> >> The problem I have with this, is that the set of claims are being
>> >> made about an identity, rather than the set of claims actually being
>> >> the identity. In my opinion the above is in direct contradiction to
>> >> the first sentence of the abstract which says 'An identity is a
>> >> collection of attributes about an entity'.
>> >>
>> >> I would therefore like to change the abstract to read
>> >>
>> >> A TBD credential is a set of claims made by one entity (the issuer)
>> >> about another entity (the holder). A TBD credential may refer to a
>> >> qualification, achievement, quality, or other information about the
>> >> entity. A set of credentials forms one of possibly many identities
>> >> of the entity.
>> >>
>> >> If this is agreed, then other similar changes will be needed
>> >> throughout the document such as: a collection of digital TBD
>> >> credentials that assert claims about that identity. TBD Credentials
>> >> are associated with identities etc.
>> >
>> > I don't see the same contradiction, so the language is failing in one
>> > way or another. I consider "an identity" to be the superset of all
>> > possible sets of credentials. A set of credentials is merely a profile
>> > of that identity.
>>
>> Can I ask you "how many identities can a subject have?". Your sentence
>> above implies the answer is one. If so, then we have a fundamental
>> disagreement
>>
>> regards
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> >
>> > We should probably change all of this language to talk instead about a
>> > Subject, which is given an identifier. And then talk about how
>> > associations can be made between that identifier and other pieces of
>> > information, in order to establish claims/attributes about the Subject.
>> > That may help avoid the "identity" confusion altogether.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>