- From: Seth Russell <russell.seth@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 05:46:02 -0700
- To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Kingsley (Uyi) Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACfYUR5MYset1wntfeUm-+VpDU2XQQpc25OmUT16BfirC-qbQA@mail.gmail.com>
+1 Either "Actor" and "Persona" work for me. So then an Actor (or alternatively a Persona) gets some name (WebId) and has the authority to act some role for a natural legal entity. That works for me as long as there is *not* some rule built into the protocol that specifies that the natural legal entity must be stated. That should be an option of the Account. So that a Bank would probably insist that the natural legal entity was named and authenticated. Also a Corporation would be a persona in that sense, acting on the authority of a *collection* of the natural legal agents sitting on its board of directors. I suppose it is kind of a philosophical point how serious we get about the criteria "natural". Me, i like it in there ... but who am i to say LOL. seth the #toothlessfoodie <https://plus.google.com/s/%23toothlessfoodie> Facebook: facebook.com/russell.seth Blog: fastblogit.com/seth/ Talking products: www.speaktomecatalog.com On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>wrote: > +1 > > Sent from my iPad > > On 21 May 2014, at 10:06 am, Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com> > wrote: > > It looks like we're making progress. In that light, I suggest we set the > date for a formal call, to try to summarize this pretty long thread and > come up with real actions/solutions and maybe things we can work on next. > > Should we try something this Friday (usual 4pm CET / 10am EST), or maybe > next Friday? > > -- Andrei > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Timothy Holborn < > timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Given many services are currently "free" it is arguable, who is providing >> the service to who. Are you the advertiser - or the customer...?? >> >> In ontological syntax, it has been my concern that the lang. Focuses on >> the needs of a service operator, rather than that of the user. The >> difference is that of a provider having "duty of care" over an accounts >> data; as that data is purported to be the property of the actor who >> established the account (meaning the end-user); vs. accounts facilitating >> growth of a platform, where actors are more so orientated towards becoming >> almost like "hive" members, in a honey farm. >> >> Perhaps poor explanation. My view is that we shouldn't pick which side, >> but provide the functionality for both. Therefore persona is important to >> me. As somewhere on that cloud, I'll want a person document, and a bunch >> of persona documents. >> >> My arguments for persona (in jan) are >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2014Jan/0007.html >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 21 May 2014, at 6:08 am, "henry.story@bblfish.net" < >> henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >> >> >> On 20 May 2014, at 21:57, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: >> >> On 05/20/2014 03:45 PM, Seth Russell wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Alternative Name >> >> >> Ok. except a Persona name is not an "*Alternative* Name". If i go on >> the web as Seth or I choose to go on the web as Patty, "Seth" is not a >> alternative name for "Patty". Were that to become true in the linked data >> world, then i would have been outed by the CyberMonster :( >> >> >> FWIW, my sense is the problem manifests even without thinking about certs >> -- it's there as soon as the user says "that's me!" about a WebID, and >> systems understand that WebID to denote a human being, instead of a persona. >> >> Today my wild idea for the easiest fix would be to make two subclasses of >> foaf:Person, perhaps named foaf:Persona and foaf:Human. Then the WebID can >> still denote a Person, and it's clear that might be a Persona or it might >> be a Human. >> >> It's a bit odd, but consider >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood . (They use the term >> "natural person" where I say "human".) Given this idea that the class >> Person and the class Human are not the same, maybe a more specific class is >> needed when talking about instances of Homo Sapiens. And if we're going to >> do that change, we can take advantage of it to solve this whole WebID >> issue. Convenient, eh? >> >> >> yes, or since WebID is defined in terms of foaf:Agent not foaf:Person you >> could have a subclass of foaf:Agent named foaf:Persona . >> >> >> Persona = a role or realm of a natural legal entity. >> >> >> The problem with this solution is that non-lawyers laugh (and often get >> angry) at the idea of Corporations being People. >> >> >> But I don't think they'd have problems with Corporations being Agents ( >> in the philosophical sense of "that which acts with intention" ), >> or with the notions of Actors, which may be a better term. ( I wonder if >> actor-network theory, which I know little of, would help here ) >> >> >> The term "actor" seems to be rather clear, in that it refers to a legal >> entity. Someone that has the capacity / authority to act. >> >> >> >> -- Sandro >> >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2014 12:47:10 UTC