Comments on: DIDW 08 & the User-Centric Debate

By: Coby Royer

Coby Royer — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:34:04 +0000

I likewise got much out of this year’s DIDW and was a bit puzzled at the user-centrism backlash. Bob, Pam, and Peter’s comments shed light on this and so I suggest we shift the focus away from ME and to US instead.

My proposal is that usage of one’s identity, claims, etc is inherently contextual and based on the relationship between ALL of the parties participating in claims. This is consistent with real world examples ranging from human discourse to management theory to programming by contract. The central idea is to unambiguously articulate (and codify) the expectations of all interacting parties. This addresses such questions as What can you do with my claims? and What’s in it for you and for me?

For example, If I give you my account number and a request for a transaction, will you honor the request and not give my account number to anyone else? When we bring in an Identity Provider, what are expectations of the Principal and Relying Party and how are these met?

Nothing comes for free so I feel it’s appropriate to address the value to both Relying Parties and Principals. Let’s define the “win-win” for both sides of the relationship and shift from you-centrism and me-centrism to US instead.

Higher order questions of transitive trust can also be addressed in this way (e.g., with explicit claims of whether or not I trust those whom you trust and for what).

Now all we need is a name for the US-centric approach (or should I say the NON-centric approach)… .

Note there are lots of research papers on Speech Act Theory that could be inspirational eg http://openebxml.sourceforge.net/methodology/SAT/sat.html. It was also good to hear some mention of ontologies and logical formalisms at DIDW although the (growing) pragmatist in me recognizes tradeoffs in deep theoretical underpinnings (i.e., boiling the ocean).

By: Bob Blakley

Bob Blakley — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:54:17 +0000

Far be it from me to accuse you of being in league with the “male mafia”! What I did say was that the “mine” vs. “yours” argument is an example of a “Western Cartesian rationalist male military mindset” (whereas resolving the argument via a Hegelian synthesis requires introducing “ours” as an addition to “mine” and “yours”). I’ll write more soon…

By: Steve Peters

Steve Peters — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:01:48 +0000

I attended DIDW and was also perplexed by Jamie’s claim that identity is NOT center and have been thinking about it ever since. I have been trying to make sense of various terms or “buzzwords” that have been in various discussions but seldom, if ever, in the same conversation. The following are the ones that stand out to me.

IDENTITY
– the individual
– I CLAIM to be who I say I am
– How can one TRUST this claim?
RELATIONSHIP
– with a connection to another individual or other individuals
– I CLAIM to want something or to be able to provide something
– How can one TRUST this claim?
CONTEXT
– at a given time and place
– my CLAIMS are true in this environment at this point in time
– How long and to what extent can I TRUST this claim?
REPUTATION
– the outcomes of which can be subjectively valued
– my CLAIMS may or may not be validated
– Can my TRUST be corroborated?

What do we do with these? Are any of these center? Do we need a center? I have no idea.