Eve, group

Sorry to miss the calls,

Definitely a need here. Thorsten has pointed out the IRM wg work to date crossing over, in fact on the innovation side of Kantara that’s supposed to be the case, we are considering next steps for the IRM WG so timing here is pretty good to see if there might be joint work.

It also seems to me that consent and UMA are good companions and the combination also has a lot of cross-over. I was playing around with consent replacing authentication, that you would have identification and consent as a basis of authorization, also removes authentication dependencies in clients and resources (simply make them consent capable <- easy right?)

You have seen these overcomplicated venns from me before, when I played with it I came up with managing, measuring, framing, binding, scoping and consenting as potential gerunds for use cases.

One a type of block chain from the past might be of interest, it was (distributed) AS Audit. It’s std bc use, doesn’t show it solves things outside of audit and not authN, authZ, admin, analytics, access.

Sal

From: dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Eve Maler
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:46 PM
To: dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] Notes from BSC telecon July 21

Another thing I could have documented in the notes: We briefly discussed how the connection of identity taxonomies to our work effort is that transactions/contracts involve parties (as Jim's emailed taxonomy demonstrates).

I don't imagine we want to take on a meta-taxonomy effort, nor a whole new comprehensive taxonomy effort, but this connection is definitely important, and probably something to touch on (or cover at more length?) in our briefing note.

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 Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:32 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-ThursdayJuly21

Agenda:

10 min: Review Tuesday's discussion briefly if we have substantially different people on the call
Rest of the time: Figure out the broad outlines of use case #1 in light of our new understanding

Attending: Thomas, Eve, Scott, Don, Marco, Matisse

In doing a use case, here are questions we could consider answering:

Who is the party we want to empower or give autonomy to? That would be the "Alice", so to speak.
What is the transaction we are describing? This would be the gerund that goes into the use case name. (Like "consent", e.g.)
What is the domain of the transaction? (Like "health research", e.g.)

We need a champion to stand up and take the new use case wiki page further. Is that Jim? John? Both together? Please see the new Alice Consents to Health Research use case page for details.

For next week:

The briefing note dumping ground to throw eggs at
Use case work

AI: Thomas: Ask Shannon to tidy up the calendar.