Re: Identity Hubs and Agents

I looked at the "Terminology for Agent~Hub-Related Identity Concepts" and
it is too complicated for me to respond from a privacy engineering point of
view. I made only one reply in the marginal comments of the gdoc:

> "I assume most of the data stores related to a DID are owned by entities
> other than the subject of the DID. For example, many labs measured my blood
> and many schools have my grades. Verifiable Credentials are a special case
> of object designed to be stored by a separate entity we call a holder."
>
Notice that this statement does not introduce any new terms except maybe
"data stores" and the "owner" of a data store where owner is strictly the
entity that can delete the data store or take the data store off-line.

We don't have to define all of the possible terms at once.The 15 or more in
this paper is too much to start with. *I suggest we prioritize the terms
and protocols that involve DIDs without any special consideration for VCs*.

From my perspective, the key to self-sovereignty are the protocols that
allow a subject to choose and substitute the agent and the hub
independently of each other. In other words, every standard data processor,
no matter who owns it, must work with every standard agent, no matter who
owns it. We need to nail this in order to preserve Alices's
self-sovereignty that we have worked so hard to build into the DID and VC
specs. Here is a sequence diagram that captures this proposal. It is part
of
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aA9bOF9EndFpapyk4_sXLZt-7_8TGyeM9A-OScc_rdo/edit#bookmark=id.vyx84areev26
where you will also find the source text in case someone wants to move it
to a more accessible place.


Adrian

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:08 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>
wrote:

> Regarding the issue of terminology around identity hubs and agents (raised
> by Adrian in the Google Doc, and also re-mentioned in the email thread), I
> have a doc I'd like to share.
>
> Before anyone roll their eyes and suggests that I need to rein in my
> terminologically imperialist tendencies :-) again, please suspend judgment
> for a second. When Daniel B and Sam C and I were writing the "Rhythm" paper
> about how hubs and agents could harmonize, we identified terminology as one
> of our big inhibitors to progress, and we spent time coming up with a list
> of concepts that needed terms. We did not get to closure on what those
> terms should be, so unlike my earlier push on agent terminology, I don't
> actually have a strong opinion about what terms the community should choose
> for these concepts. But I do care about the list of concepts itself. I
> think it might provide a good (but incomplete) set of concepts for which
> terms might be needed, with respect to the narrow subtopic of this email
> thread.
>
> I've attached the doc as a PDF. @Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> does
> that satisfy the need for the doc to be in the permanent archive, or do I
> need to paste it inline in my email?
>
>>

-- 

Adrian Gropper MD

PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: https://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-3/