<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No User Context Decisions in your Enterprise?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2008/03/27/no-user-context-decisions-in-your-enterprise/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2008/03/27/no-user-context-decisions-in-your-enterprise/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:51:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Pamela</title>
		<link>http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2008/03/27/no-user-context-decisions-in-your-enterprise/comment-page-1/#comment-354</link>
		<dc:creator>Pamela</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:43:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://eternaloptimist.wordpress.com/?p=258#comment-354</guid>
		<description>Theoretically resolved - yes.  Resolved in practice - not always.  I have been in Enterprises with role-based access control in place who still choose to assign multiple user accounts on the same app to the same user.  These fringe cases are the ones I&#039;m referring to.

Absolutely, a role is context - I would call roles &quot;system readable&quot; context, to steal a term.  Most Identity projects involve turning non-system-readable business processes into system readable rules and policies.  Most roles would never need a card, and certainly it would be a user interface nightmare to activate every role, but in the case where adoption of a role represents an event the  Enterprise wants to acknowledge, or where the system cannot judge which of two conflicting roles should be adopted, yes I definitely think that cards are useful.

thanks for the comments!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Theoretically resolved &#8211; yes.  Resolved in practice &#8211; not always.  I have been in Enterprises with role-based access control in place who still choose to assign multiple user accounts on the same app to the same user.  These fringe cases are the ones I&#8217;m referring to.</p>
<p>Absolutely, a role is context &#8211; I would call roles &#8220;system readable&#8221; context, to steal a term.  Most Identity projects involve turning non-system-readable business processes into system readable rules and policies.  Most roles would never need a card, and certainly it would be a user interface nightmare to activate every role, but in the case where adoption of a role represents an event the  Enterprise wants to acknowledge, or where the system cannot judge which of two conflicting roles should be adopted, yes I definitely think that cards are useful.</p>
<p>thanks for the comments!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robin</title>
		<link>http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2008/03/27/no-user-context-decisions-in-your-enterprise/comment-page-1/#comment-353</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://eternaloptimist.wordpress.com/?p=258#comment-353</guid>
		<description>Situations #1 and #4 are theoretically resolved using a role based access control approach. This leads me to the following two questions:

   1. Does role equal context ?
   2. Do (virtual) cards become a convenient means for activating one&#039;s role ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Situations #1 and #4 are theoretically resolved using a role based access control approach. This leads me to the following two questions:</p>
<p>   1. Does role equal context ?<br />
   2. Do (virtual) cards become a convenient means for activating one&#8217;s role ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
