Re: Kim Cameron's Laws of Identity

It isn't a "digital identity"

see our lexicon...http://wiki.idcommons.net/Digital_Identity

Digital Identity
Definition: A digital representation of a set of Claims made by one  
Party about itself or another Digital Subject. [originally from Kim's  
Laws, ScottL, PaulT, BobWyman]
Comment1: A Digital Identity is just one set of Claims about a Digital  
Subject. For any given Digital Subject there will typically exist many  
Digital Identities . [PaulT]
Comment2: A Digital Identity can be created on the fly when a  
particular identity transaction is desired, or persisted in a data  
store to provide a referenceable representation [ScottL, Drummond,  
MaryRuddy]
Comment3: A Digital Identity may contain Claims made by multiple  
Claimants. [DickH]
Comment4: A Digital Identity may be signed by a Digital Identity  
Provider to provide assurance to a Relying Party [ConorC]

So "digital Identity" doesn't mean..."This one site can contain the  
aggregated of all the users information from multiple personae.  The  
person (or user) has control over what aspects are shared in what  
locations. "

Find a different word or phrase that describes what you are  
suggesting. I have put several forward that I think would do.  "master  
IdP" or "uber-IdP"  "complete identity host"

We don't want a web where everyone says "your ID please"
it is more like what identifier do you want to use today (and the user  
has many options)





On Jan 22, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Alexander Korth wrote:

> Call it »Digital Identity«, then for instance. Luckily everything  
> comes with a context. Thus, the industry may very well understand  
> the specific concept.
> »Your ID, please.« ;)
>
> - Alex
>
> On 22.01.2010, at 18:14, Kaliya wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2010, at 2:14 AM, Alexander Korth wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> -1 (minus) need to come up with new term. The term is already very  
>>> widely accepted in both, industry and science. There won't be any  
>>> benefits from renaming the term.
>>
>> the term "identity" means many things and it is accepted in  
>> industry when not used alone for a specific thing you decide to  
>> define (when other people have a different definition.
>>
>>
>> The specific way that "identity" is defined in the paper as
>>> "This one site can contain the aggregated of all the users  
>>> information from multiple personae.  The person (or user) has  
>>> control over what aspects are shared in what locations"
>>
>> is NOT what is meant by the term IdP - that is the provider/host of  
>> AN (one) identifier that belongs to a person not the complete total  
>> of all identities/identifiers + claims (profile fields) that they  
>> have on the web.
>>
>> You need to be clear what you mean by "identity" notice the other  
>> term you mention is "Identity PROVIDER" it is used in conduction  
>> with another term that helps it be at least somewhat specific in  
>> what it is referring to.
>>
>> You could go with something like "master IdP" or "uber-IdP" or some  
>> other "complete identity host" (cause shoudln't the user/person be  
>> able to move this to different places) - what ever you do please  
>> don't use the word "identity" by itself - that will cause problems.
>>
>> Just thoughts.
>> -Kaliya
>>
>>
>>
>>> The problem of having several profiles will not diminish but  
>>> change significantly over the next few years:
>>> People will choose one main profile which is hosted by an identity  
>>> provider. That provider most of the times will be one that they  
>>> trust most and/or that does already have loads of profile  
>>> information about the user anyways. There will be a tipping point  
>>> where the opening to these profile data from the provider side  
>>> will be so significant that service providers will choose to not  
>>> any more implement an autarkic user management - this is the  
>>> separation of service and identity management. There are many  
>>> visions towards this, including my own [1,2,3].
>>> When this happens, there won't be many equivalent and proprietary  
>>> profile providers any more but *the* one main identity provider  
>>> per user. These providers will have an agreed set of interfaces to  
>>> read (and write) data. This is the enabler for a new generation of  
>>> user-centric profile management features, incl. control over  
>>> information reach, deletion of information etc.
>>> The terms identity and identity provider (IdP) are widely accepted  
>>> and used. To me, it emphasizes a service's focus on identities as  
>>> such which I understand as a much higher sophisticated profile  
>>> from both, the user model quality and the management feature set  
>>> point of view.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alexander Korth
>>>
>>> Managing Director of Make Customers Friends (http://www.makecustomersfriends.com 
>>> )
>>>
>>> [1] Marc Canter's Open Mesh http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/how-to-build-the-open-mesh/
>>> [2] Dick Hardt's legendary and brilliant because 4 yrs old  
>>> Identity 2.0 talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrpajcAgR1E
>>> [3] My Web of Identities, which is kind of a LinkedData amongst  
>>> IdPs to look up ppl data http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_of_identities_making_machine-accessible_people_data.php
>>>
>>> On 22.01.2010, at 05:08, Renato Iannella wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 21 Jan 2010, at 20:19, Yuk Hui wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is probably why "Identity" is the wrong term....
>>>>
>>>> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>>>> NICTA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Alexander Korth
>>> www.twitter.com/alexkorth
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> VG,
> Alex
>
> -- 
> Alexander Korth
> www.twitter.com/alexkorth
>
>