Monday through Wednesday I was at Digital ID World. I hadn't been for the past 3 or 4 years, so it was nice to get re-acquainted with some people I hadn't seen for a while.
I got to talk with some people about the User Identity Reference Model. A few people expressed interest in participating to develop the model. I hope they start submitting comments on this blog.
I also got to speak with some people about a collaboration forum for enterprise identity architects. We're trying to set up such a forum under Identity Commons. A draft charter is visible (and editable if you want to insert your thoughts) at http://wiki.idcommons.net/Index.php/Enterprise_Identity_Architects_Charter. One thought is that we could organize a mini-conference that would occur at the next IIW.
2 comments:
Marty, we met at DIDW and I assured you I would take a look. You seemed concerned about lack of input. One initial thought is that it's hard to think about identity without a context. What is the context for this model? I would think it's intimidating for many to try to provide input unless they really understand what you're
trying to build.
Also, I think account and persona are two different things. During one of the sessions this week, someone pointed out that a single person can have multiple personas. Ideally, I think a single account would enable a person to utilize multiple personas. Privileges and privacy settings would be determined based on the persona rather than the account.
Marty, this is great stuff. Several people mentioned it to me at Digital ID World so I know word is getting out. Here's a few comments on the current picture:
1) Explicitly modelling Context was a great choice. Higgins did that and it solves a raft of problems. Same with Subject inside a Context (Higgins still calls them Entities, but that's just their semantics -- they mean the same thing you do by Subject).
2) If it's supposed to be truly a generalized model for all types of networked identity, then "Sponsor" and "IT Role" are two labels that seem a little narrow. For "Sponsor", I would suggest "Authority" or "Context Authority" (if you mean the party responsible for the Context) or "Realm Authority" if you mean the party responsible for the Digital Realm.
3) For "IT Role", why is it "IT"? Why not just "Role"?
4) "Digital Realm" seems very important -- it's a subspace of a Context and it has its own box -- but why doesn't it have it's own definition.
5) "Account" is really hard to decide about in the very generalized model. Isn't an Account just a Digital Persona establish in a specific system?
6) Where do "Groups" fit?
=Drummond
Post a Comment