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?
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.
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.
> 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>
> 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":
* 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.