Using 'Portability' to invoke the DP brand
Chris Saad
brand - we need to make sure that this is done in an appropriate way.
http://chrissaad.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/mean-what-you-say-say-what-you-mean/
Paul Madsen
identity portable, nor the term
paul
Chris Saad
The context in which Marissa is using the word clearly does not match with Data or Identity Portability - the section is dedicated to accessing your data from any Internet connected device.
Would you disagree?
Chris
Chris Saad
FaradayMedia - For Audiences of One
Particls - Are You Paying Attention?
Engagd - The Open Attention Platform
Media 2.0 Workgroup - Social, Democratic, Distributed
APML - Your Attention Profile
DataPortability - Connect, Control, Share, Remix
hank williams
Paul - that is true of course, however I think you will agree that it has popularized it. The popularity has resulted in a number of groups using the phrase more frequently in an attempt to invoke the spirit of the project.
The context in which Marissa is using the word clearly does not match with Data or Identity Portability - the section is dedicated to accessing your data from any Internet connected device.
Would you disagree?
I may be mistaken, but I actually think that in the context of health records, "portability" is a term of art that pre-dates DataPortability. It relates, I believe, to the ability to move your health records from one provider to another. In this case, it is not just about the internet connection, but about allowing, and being able to control, what information about you providers have access to as well as which providers. This is a fairly big deal in the health care community. I believe there has been significant legislative effort around defining data formats for health records to facilitate this portability. That said what I am saying is based on conversations I had a while ago with a friend who is a technologist and a doctor. As such, I may be remembering parts of it incorrectly. But the point is that the issue of "portability" as they define it, pre-dates DP I think.
Hank
--
-----------------------------------------
whydoeseverythingsuck.com
Paul Madsen
But I've been involved with the Liberty Alliance for some 6 years, and
we have used the concept & term to refer to moving identity around the
network in a secure & privacy respecting manner since day one.
I tried in vain to popularize 'Portable & Potable' (to make clear that
the recipient has to be able to parse the data for it to be of any use),
it never took off :-)
Wrt Google's press, how is being able to access my health data from a
device inconsistent with DP's values & philosophy? Because there was no
mention of OpenID , or RSS? Personally I want my data portable across
applications, devices, etc.
Regards
Paul
Gordon Rae
Has anybody got any information about GoogleHealth? Does it allow users to port their data in and out between different hosts? Or does it allow a single host to move your data around?
DataPortability is about personal profile and social network data, and empowering me, the subject of that data, to control it. It’s not about allowing an organization I have entrusted with my data, to control it on my behalf.
Gordon
Ryan Parman
> however I think you will agree that it has
> popularized it.
To maintain the proper perspective, "popularized" is used to refer
entirely to a geek-only crowd at this point. "Popularized" in this
context should not be confused with "mainstream," but of course we're
all smart enough to know that. I'm simply trying to keep this
discussion framed properly. ;)
Having said that, I don't believe this statement is true. There have
been many of us who -- for quite some time -- have been thinking about
data portability. Data portability is essentially the fundamental
tenet of "Web 2.0" (via web services, RSS, and XHTML/CSS primarily,
which then kicked off the AJAX craze). We (who have been thinking
about it already for quite some time) came together to form this Data
Portability group. The ideas gave birth to the group, not the other
way around. And going back to the point about maintaining perspective,
I think it's still a little too early to be drawing this kind of line
in the sand about the difference between data portability (lowercase)
and Data Portability (capitalized).
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Paul Madsen <paul....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Chris, with all due respect, DP did not invent the concept of making
> identity portable, nor the term.
I completely agree with this. I know that the base of the discussion
was about the Google Health announcement and the definition of
"portability". We can have great ideas all day long, but until someone
implements them in some way, there's nothing to argue about. I know
that patient records can be a hassle, and Google is attempting to
provide a solution to that problem by making patient data portable.
Here is a definition of "portable":
--
portable |ˈpôrtəbəl|
adjective
* Able to be easily carried or moved, esp. because of being a lighter
and smaller version than usual : a portable television.
* Computing (of software): Able to be transferred from one machine or
system to another.
--
Google sounds like they're trying to do both here... which is also
what we're doing. If you want to add things like control, trust,
security and other things to the definition of "Data Portability,"
then I'm not against that. But it kinda feels like we're accusing
Google of hijacking the term, and I don't believe they are.
Deepak Singh
http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-public/browse_thread/thread/53899b1b58ae1b11?hl=en
The problem here is health care records, especially as we add
information that even physicians don't quite understand are very
different from your social information. More than portability, there
need to be efforts around data standards and data ownership. I
actually don't want patients to decide who gets to see their
healthcare information, since they are not educated enough to make
that decision.
The DP project and current web 2.0 efforts do provide access
mechanisms, but the issues related to healthcare records are not about
attention, they are not about identity, they are not about social
networks. They are far more fundamental. Developing standards like
HL7, making sure GINA or similar legislation comes into play, etc are
far more critical.
Are personal health record systems like HealthVault and GoogleHealth
important. Yes, since they put more control in the hands of the user,
but I'd like to hear how Google is going to support HIPAA, or whether
it's going to support HL7 first. Then we can worry about the other
issues.
Along with all that, I am with those who think the term portability is
much too general. It's good to popularize the use of the term, but we
shouldn't get dogmatic about it.
Deepak
On Feb 29, 3:59 pm, Ryan Parman <ryan.lists.warpsh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > however I think you will agree that it has
> > popularized it.
>
> To maintain the proper perspective, "popularized" is used to refer
> entirely to a geek-only crowd at this point. "Popularized" in this
> context should not be confused with "mainstream," but of course we're
> all smart enough to know that. I'm simply trying to keep this
> discussion framed properly. ;)
>
> Having said that, I don't believe this statement is true. There have
> been many of us who -- for quite some time -- have been thinking about
> data portability. Data portability is essentially the fundamental
> tenet of "Web 2.0" (via web services, RSS, and XHTML/CSS primarily,
> which then kicked off the AJAX craze). We (who have been thinking
> about it already for quite some time) came together to form this Data
> Portability group. The ideas gave birth to the group, not the other
> way around. And going back to the point about maintaining perspective,
> I think it's still a little too early to be drawing this kind of line
> in the sand about the difference between data portability (lowercase)
> and Data Portability (capitalized).
>
Brady
portability idea from DataPortability, the implementation of that
idea, and from the DataPortability Project itself.
It is extremely important that anytime we invoke DataPortability as a
brand, we reference it properly.
This page has some useful guidelines:
http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-public/web/the-dp-badge
-Brady
Phil Wolff
This page has been updated and wikified.
http://dataportability.onconfluence.com/display/dpmain/The+DataPortability+Brand+Usage+Guide
Phil Wolff
managing editor, Skype Journal
http://SkypeJournal.com
pwo...@skypejournal.com
skype:evanwolf
+1-510-444-8234 San Francisco
+1-646-461-6123 New York
+44 020 8816 8780 London
+852 8175 8107 Hong Kong
http://www.linkedin.com/in/philwolff
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=724232370
Steven Greenberg
Health care has a whole set of privacy and portability issues that dwarf what we're doing. She's speaking in terms of HIPAA, and it doesn't have anything to do with us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act
