Re: Kim Cameron's Laws of Identity

Apologize again that I didn't have a phone at hand and couldn't participate
in the discussion

If as the minutes points out identity=aggregated profile, it is then no
different from "representations of a person" , or which is even a better
description. from the definition in the framework[1], it looks like there
is  a one-to-one mapping (single,unique identity for a social web user), but
is it the case? 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?

Yuk

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/SocialWebFrameworks

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>wrote:

>
> On 21 Jan 2010, at 09:50, Kaliya wrote:
>
> The Data Portability Project is working on tools to support website being
> clearer to users about their portability policies
> http://wiki.dataportability.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4490392
>
>
> Interesting that this document is trying to "provide standard names for key
> concepts" and includes:
>
> • Identity: Representations of a person
>
> Which was discussed in today's call [2] as probably not the best term
> (since it is so overloaded).
> We are tracking this as an issue [1].
>
> In this case, it would map better to our current "Profile" term - as we
> currently use "Identity" for the larger aggregate set of Profiles.
>
> Also mentioned in today's call [2] was a link [3] that also uses "Profile"
> as we do.
>
> We plan to add a mapping column to our vocab terms so that was can see the
> wider communities use of similar concepts.
>
> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
> NICTA
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/track/issues/2/edit
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/20-swxg-minutes.html
> [3] http://www.openprivacy.org/opd.shtml
>