DataPortability and Identity Commons
Chris Saad
adopt their charter framework to help facilitate interaction between
their existing efforts.
An example charter (this one for OASIS) looks like this:
http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/OsisCharter
The key shared component that loosely coupled the groups is reflected
here:
http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Purpose_And_Principles
As with the W3C issue, I feel that the DP group can best serve the
community by being an independent story telling body - one that takes
input from all sides and weaves it into a complete, contextualized
blueprint.
That being said, however, I think that the charter they outline is
fairly lightweight - and we really need to be filling out our charter
anyway. Also I don't see anything problematic with the core Purpose
and Principles.
I would imagine the OpenID peeps (David/Scott etc?) would be familiar
with this already?
So the question is:
Should we adopt the core principles and bring ourselves in line with
the IC groups? Any down side? Any up side?
Cheers,
Chris
Danny Ayers
>
> A number of people at the Identity Commons group have asked us to
> adopt their charter framework to help facilitate interaction between
> their existing efforts.
>
> An example charter (this one for OASIS) looks like this:
> http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/OsisCharter
This part looks reasonable. But...
> The key shared component that loosely coupled the groups is reflected
> here:
> http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Purpose_And_Principles
...but I'm not so sure about this, because the purpose of the identity
commons group ("open identity layer for the Internet") is not the same
as that of the DataPortability group.
Not being directly involved, I can't give a definitive answer, but
from the open identity perspective, I suspect data portability would
be perceived as something enabled by open identity. The identity stuff
certainly does have a special role when it comes to trust,
authorization and authentication in data portability. But
fundamentally identity (according to the OI definition) is just one
specific kind of data. (I have a few comments on those definitions,
will mail separately).
A high-level approximation of this would be that to OI folks DP is a
subset of their purpose, and contrariwise to DP folks OI is a subset
of their purpose...
> As with the W3C issue, I feel that the DP group can best serve the
> community by being an independent story telling body - one that takes
> input from all sides and weaves it into a complete, contextualized
> blueprint.
Heh, I'm still not convinced "blueprint" is the best way to go, but I
agree with your general sentiment here.
> That being said, however, I think that the charter they outline is
> fairly lightweight - and we really need to be filling out our charter
> anyway. Also I don't see anything problematic with the core Purpose
> and Principles.
Except it's a different purpose..?
> I would imagine the OpenID peeps (David/Scott etc?) would be familiar
> with this already?
>
> So the question is:
>
> Should we adopt the core principles and bring ourselves in line with
> the IC groups? Any down side? Any up side?
I'd like to hear more about the OI perspective on DP. Right now it
seems to me that while the aims and goals may be the same, and the
purposes complementary, they are not the same, hence adopting them
would probably not be a good move.
Cheers,
Danny.
--