I may miss the call tomorrow for want of telecommunications (yes, I'm in a place that great).

On ontology/taxonomy/objects, I think the group could do _very_ useful work integrating a naming system for the elements of legal documents with technical systems.  Legal greatly influences the shape of relationships, and is a pervasive pain point. 

On graphs, I agree that it will be very fruitful to view legal relationships and transactions as a graph.  IMHO, this can be deeply clarifying for law and those subject to law.

As a sketch of document-oriented naming system: - http://source.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=zF/Agt/00/Form/NDA/0.md (work-in-progress).  I expect that we could learn a lot from machine learning systems, for instance systems that analyze masses of legal documents.

 

 



On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Scott Shorter <sshorter@kimbleassociates.com> wrote:
Hi Jeff,

1. The group is still using the Kantara audio bridge rather than the joinme audio.

2. I concur that the taxonomy/ontology of things is something that DG-IDOT has been working on, but I don’t think that means this group should avoid the topic. Whether it’s an ontology or a taxonomy or a model, there needs to be a starting point for any discussion if it’s going to get off on a solid foundation.  By my count, the topic came up two independent times on yesterday’s call, and it tickled my memory of the “book report” I did on the NISTIR for the DG-IDOT, so I shared the link to that page.

Hope that provides the context, Jeff.

Thanks,
Scott

Scott Shorter - Vice President, Security
sshorter@kimbleassociates.com

On Jul 19, 2016, at 4:23 PM, j stollman <stollman.j@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

Please pardon my confusion.  I was on today's call, but could not hear any audio on the JoinMe site.  Is there a separate dialin for audio?

Coming in uninformed, I am concerned that the taxonomy falls more squarely under the auspices of the IoT DG.  I am unclear why it is important for the BSC DG.  I don't bring this up as a matter of turf, but rather a concern that we aren't reinventing wheels being developed elsewhere.  And I am anxious to understand the connection of the taxonomy to blockchain.  Perhaps, missing the call, I missed some key information that would provide me with the appropriate context?

Thank you.

Jeff


---------------------------------
Jeff Stollman
stollman.j@gmail.com
1 202.683.8699

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
Science advances one funeral at a time.
                                    Max Planck

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:15 PM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:
In my work originating from legal documents some imperfect classes are implemented imperfectly.  These are driven by the needs of documents, e.g., signature for an Entity is usually by a Human, pronouns are different for he/she.  

  1. Person ("id"):
    1. Human
      1. He
      2. She
    2. Entity
      1. Corp
      2. NFP
      3. Agency
      4. an almost infinite number of LLCs, partnerships, SAs, etc., under various legal regimes
    3.  Role
      1. E.g., bank accounts and phone subscriptions
  2. Places ("at"):
    1. Political:
      1. Nation; State/Province/Canton/...; City; ...
    2. GPS (not implemented)
  3. Things ("it"):
    1. Barely implemented - tangible and intangible things, some of which can be property (owned) and some can't Patent, Vehicle, RealEstate.  Haven't thought about animals. 
  4. IoT - PDS, whatever - a "peer" in the graph (has a GUID, can be associated with a Person or Thing)
  5. Event - records of transactions.  NDA, consent, loan agreement, acknowledgement of ToU, notice, etc.
The most compact work on this is at source.commonaccord.org.
  


On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Scott Shorter <sshorter@kimbleassociates.com> wrote:
Good question, Eve.  I’m not aware of alternative taxonomies, but it seems likely, since “how to name all the things” is probably a common topic.  

I like the NIST doc since it’s freely available and good quality, but am interested in what else is out there.

Scott Shorter - Vice President, Security
sshorter@kimbleassociates.com

On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Eve Maler <eve.maler@forgerock.com> wrote:

Thanks for the email and document context both; I've edited the link in the minutes.

Do you happen to know if there are any other "competing" taxonomies covering the same scope out there?

Eve Maler
ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology
Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits are coming to Sydney, London, and Paris!


On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Scott Shorter <sshorter@kimbleassociates.com> wrote:
Hi Eve,

The link I should’ve send was this one, which provides a little context for the image I linked to before.  The image is a data model derived from the SCAP Asset Identification standard (NISTIR 7693), which could be relevant to the ontology discussions that came up a couple times during the call.

Thanks,
Scott

Scott Shorter - Vice President, Security
sshorter@kimbleassociates.com

On Jul 19, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Eve Maler <eve.maler@forgerock.com> wrote:

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-07+%28July+2016%29+Meetings#id-2016-07(July2016)Meetings-TuesdayJuly19

Agenda:

  • 15 min: Sharpen our deliverable ToC/value prop
    • E.g., focus on transactions/contracts aspects? verticals/sectors? what other constraints to make our goals achievable and valuable?...
    • Choose a mini-goal for Aug 5 (the one-month mark)
  • 15 min: Thorsten: present IRM touchpoints and next steps
  • Homework for Thursday: next steps on patient consent for research (?) use case

Attending: Eve, Thorsten, Jim, Marc D, John, Philip (Thomas regrets)

Sharpening our deliverable: Is our primary audience the Kantara leadership, as John suggests? Kantara is in the business of identity innovation and interior. Jim notes that he's discovered the centrality of identity to his purposes, while blockchain is really one of a variety or family of technologies that are potentially relevant to his purposes, namely "moving legal onto GitHub, more or less – making legal processes cheaper and faster and getting them closer to user control and autonomy". Other technologies : IPFS and so on.

We seem to have achieved rough consensus about this vision for the scope of our briefing note: We want to focus on use cases that are about "contracting and transacting" in the context of empowering individuals, smaller companies, smaller countries, and communities in a "peer to peer" way with larger companies and countries etc. (not meaning P2P technologies necessarily, though it might do so). "Legal" means a formal statement of relationships, and it could include contracts, permits, consents, and so on. All legal documents increment relationships between some "Persons" (including both human and non-human).

IRM presentation: Thorsten presented some thoughts (of his own) on the IRM principles. We're thinking that capturing various technologies adjacent to blockchain (many of which he has listed here) and presenting an analysis of them in our briefing note would be a valuable idea.

Scott (not on the line but on the screenshare) added this link to a taxonomy of identity types, including human and other.

AI: Eve: Create a GDoc that would be a briefing note dumping ground for outline ideas (see above re Thorsten comments).

Eve Maler
ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology
Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits are coming to Sydney, London, and Paris!

_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc




_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc




--
@commonaccord

_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc






--
@commonaccord