Note in the USA the HHS/ONC has recognized submissions to their blockchain in healthcare competition
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2016/08/29/onc-announces-blockchain-challenge-winners.html
John
On Aug 29, 2016 6:01 PM, "Eve Maler" <eve.maler@forgerock.com> wrote:Based on our round-robin inputs, the group did reach consensus on a use case universe, so to speak, which may address this question in part (as recorded on our wiki):"[The DG] plans to deliver a report at the end of [the six months] that offers recommendations and observations to Kantara regarding solving use cases for empowering traditionally disempowered parties (such as individuals) to "contract and transact" e.g. with parties that traditionally hold greater power (such as companies and large countries), given the new landscape of decentralization and distributed technologies and techniques and their mixture with identity."One good reason to open up decisions previously made for reconsideration would be that we have new information on the table. One good reason to try and keep the time-boxing is that this technology world and the insights being gleaned about it (one could say the "hype cycle") are rapidly maturing, so those with requirements and use cases will want to influence the builders.Why don't we take up all of these meta-questions in tomorrow's call and try to drive towards "why we're here" once again, being extremely concrete? In other words, please be prepared to argue for specific scope wording that differs from (e.g., broadens or tightens) the statement above in whatever dimensions if you think it's not suitable in its current form.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 London and Paris!On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Thorsten H. Niebuhr [WedaCon GmbH] <tniebuhr@wedacon.net> wrote:Which (for me) translates into the (open) question (and I really dont wanna be the advocatis diaboli):
Should we split and discuss SmartContracts independently from BlockChain /DLT (here: in respect to identity management) ?
SmartContracts are discussed and worked on already in the consensus field (esp. CommonAccord) with great results/findings.
Thesis: SmartContracts are just a usecase for DLT/Blockchain (and I have used the order on purpose here)
But its late for me, and I might be totally wrong...
reg,
T.
On 30.08.2016 00:02, j stollman wrote:
I agree with Colin and Andrew's sentiments about trying to achieve a consensus on what the DG report should look like and what we could do as a next step in a WG. But I don't believe that there is a natural consensus on this broad topic at this point. Like the blind men describing the elephant, we are looking at blockchain and smart contracts from multiple perspectives -- none of which are wrong.
I personally sense that there is some high-level agreement to focus on a couple broad solution areas as targets for a report (e.g., healthcare research consents). But I also sense that there is a lot of talking past each other when we start drilling down to the direction people want to go. Unlike other DGs, we have taken on two very broad topic areas in this DG (blockchain and smart contracts) just to try to get our heads wrapped around the subject. I don't know that we have accomplished this basic goal. We are still "storming" and nowhere near "norming". This makes it hard to come to any kind of agreement. And, perhaps forcing ourselves into a lukewarm consensus just to meet a self-imposed deadline will keep us from discovering some significant value added topics that would benefit from the combined wisdom of the highly intelligent participants in this group.
Perhaps, rather than a single report, we made need to consider multiple reports and/or multiple targets for a new WG or set of WGs. I don't claim that this is the answer. I just don't sense that we are close enough to any consensus yet to create a report with significant value.
Jeff
--------------------------------- Jeff Stollman+1 202.683.8699
Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.Science advances one funeral at a time.Max Planck
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:18 PM, M AV <av_m@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ditto on the keep-it-simple sentiment – except that I wouldn’t characterize it as “not beg[ing] the question of technology” so much as not getting into the weeds with details, the distinction being that I do think we need to keep cycling back to the basic question of what the smart contract/authenticated ledger technology especially enables in the proo0sed use cases, e.g. empowerment of smart contract parties, authenticated chain of asset states, etc.
J ann vroom
From: dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiati
ve.org [mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org ] On Behalf Of Eve Maler
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 12:08 PM
To: Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>
Hi folks-- Now that I'm back from my vacation with self-imposed lack of connectivity...
It's fine for us to get more experts at our table, but this should in no way impede our development and completion of use cases. I do think we can easily over-rotate on use case writing, and we probably are doing so. They should be short and crisp, and -- most importantly from my perspective -- should not beg the question of technology by including requirements for technology in them. If there's a requirement for, say, not trusting a central authority, say why plainly and move on. If it turns out that this is in tension with a requirement for limiting access by some parties for some purpose (e.g., the best way today for ensuring "permissioning" of some portion of a solution stack is to use identity/access federation frameworks with a TTP in them), so be it; we're here to describe the use cases and then those tensions in the use-case technology/technique SWOTs, not write specs.
That said, we can be very dynamic in writing our materials given online docs and hyperlinking and such, and thus we can get internal and external review as we go along. So if we're disciplined, we don't have to write-write-write now and then only get review in month 6.
My preference would be for use cases to be relatively text-sparse and to include use case diagrams as appropriate. Not sure how realistic this is, though.
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 London and Paris!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com> wrote:
John W. - that is one very good candidate - it would, of course, need more detail at this stage to spur the need for a WG.
One way to view a WG is through questions like:
- Which technical or policy audience needs a consensus standard, guidance or tool?
- Is there a state of practice or new regulation/legislation that is ready for compliance and conformance development and even certification?
- Is there a consensus position or opinion that needs to be articulated in order to rally the industry and inform a specific audience?
- Is there a group of related activities or initiatives that would benefit from an umbrella document to knit the parts together and bring cohesion to the disparate work?
The mission of a WG is to create useful artifacts for a well-scoped, well-defined audience through consensus-based collaboration. This mission is easy to execute when participants with a strong interest in the outcome/output are engaged (otherwise WGs drift).
andrew.
Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP
Independent Consultant
In Turn Information Management Consultingo +1 650.209.7542
m +1 250.888.9474
1249 Palmer Road,
Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com
ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:03 AM, John Wunderlich <john@wunderlich.ca> wrote:
Colin;
Given the constraints/opportunities it occurs to me that the DG report should seek to articulate the Terms of Reference for a Kantara WG whose goal would be to define and work to create a Proof Of Concent instantiation of a Blockchain and/or SmartContract ecosystem that will move the user centred identity concept closer to fruition, if that makes sense?
Sincerely,
John Wunderlich
@PrivacyCDN
Call: +1 (647) 669-4749
eMail: john@wunderlich.ca
On 29 August 2016 at 10:34, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John M, John W, James, Patrick et al
I think we are all in agreement we could do with more input from the broader BC and SC communities.
And of course that is most welcomed, moreso if they bring their own communities with them and join Kantara which helps pay for the platform on which the DG rests:-).
I'm also sensitive to the LC Chair Andrew's motivation to bring DG discussions to a conclusion at frequent intervals (typically 6 months) in order to get onto the work of addressing the issues that the DG use cases and deliberations raise.
These two things are not mutually exclusive. We can have a WG working on solutions arising from a DG output, while at the same time having a DG continue to draw in more use cases and discussion. The Charters need to be directed and focussed accordingly and the timelines clear.
John W's estimates are about right. We started this DG in May, so we need to have it concluded November latest. Take off a month of writing and there is 2 months left.
It is really tempting to slip the timeline to allow more discussion in a DG, as a preface to WG work.
But past experience has shown us that that often comes at the expense of focussing the resulting WG on nailing the solutions to the problems raised, to a logical formal end deliverable in a community-valuable timeframe.
There is so much to do in this space.
Biting it off in a continual process of digestible chunks is absolutely OK.
Cheers
Colin
From: John Moehrke <johnmoehrke@gmail.com>
Sent: 29 August 2016 13:42
To: James Hazard
Cc: Colin Wallis; dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
I have a potential new use of Blockchain and Smart-Contracts. I have written it up using the template, but don't yet have rights on the Kantara system. I have published what I have developed with a friend of mine (Health Informaticist and Researcher) onto my Blog. I am happy to submit it fully to the Kantara DG-BSC efforts if the community is interested.
The use-case is Evidence Notebooks (aka Lab Notebooks, or Patent Notebooks).
John
John Moehrke
Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, and Security
CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy
M +1 920-564-2067
JohnMoehrke@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke
https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?")
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:26 AM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Colin,
I think it might be helpful to have wider representation of the blockchain community on the thread. I mention the DG-BSC when I am in conversation with them.
On deliverables, I think we have spent good time well on discussing what blockchains and smart contracts are and aren't, and could do more on how they fit into a broader picture of automation, institutions, privacy and security. (Elements of the blockchain community, IMHO, sometimes think they don't need to think about institutions, since ridding the world of institutions is the goal of decentralization.)
I suggest that we could:
Describe a general "smart contract" paradigm on the lines of:
i) events - (Barclay's and R3's "parameters")
ii) text objects ("prose," actors, things, places, etc.)
iii) Smart Contract Description Language
iv) code
We could describe the relationship between this "smart contract" record of relationships and transactions, on the one hand, and various databases on the other.
We could describe some uses cases where blockchain databases were useful.
This would not exclude developing use-case verticals. The consent to use of genetic information use case seems potent.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks All
Interesting thoughts and discussion.
Indeed we could invite some other folks not engaged here to add their use cases.
But it would need to be pretty soon.
We are more than half way through the 6 month period for collecting use cases, allowing some time for the report to be written up with recommendations on what work we might take forward to a WG to deliver a specific useful tangible output.
There is plenty of talk in this domain. But Kantara value proposition that it is about 'doing', and the community will be the better for a useful deliverable as a result. Let's not divert from that goal.
That said, there is nothing to stop another DG, or a re-charter of this DG, working on a another suite of use cases perhaps for a particular context.
Cheers
Colin
From: dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiati
ve.org <dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org > on behalf of Patrick Curry <patrick.curry@bbfa.info>
Sent: 28 August 2016 22:15
To: James Hazard
Cc: dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
The devil is in the detail and also in the minds of innovators and start ups.
Back end transactions of smart contracts differ from the smart contracts in BCs with their transparency property. My colleagues see a difference and it is giving rise to new user cases. One involves the ability of all parties in a police incident to be able to validate that the legally permitted individual policeman is assigned to a specific task for that incident in real time based on his skills, training, authority etc. The rules are being executed in a distributed fashion with distributed inputs, all assured. This particular example is in the concept stage. However, there is another international logistic example. leveraging an existing pilot, that is expected to move into implementation soon.
I’ll speak to Colin. We could be inviting some of the more forward BC companies to engage in the KI discussion.
regards,
Patrick
Patrick Curry
Director
British Business Federation Authority - BBFA Ltd
M: +44 786 024 9074
T: +44 1980 620606
patrick.curry@bbfa.info
www.bbfa.info – a not-for-profit, self-regulating body
On 28 Aug 2016, at 20:07, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, IPFS is a very useful resource.
The chain of consent to use of information seems to unify many use cases. A few links in the chain from prior threads in the discussion:
Patient consent from our discussion earlier this week:
Data transfer agreements on the EU "Model Clauses":
(Available in 20+ languages, about six of which are in the demo).
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu> wrote:
Cc: Thomas Hardjono; dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org
Jim,
With regards to legal contracts for data-sharing, this could be (should be) a good use-case for BSC.
/thomas/
________________________________________
From: Jim Willeke [jim@willeke.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:56 AM
To: John Wunderlich
Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
I agree with /thomas/. There is no reason smart contracts could not be done via a protocol with the back-end system be unknown.
IPFS could be used as an example.
JLINC<http://www.jlinclabs.com/protocol/ >
_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
...