Paul,

I am missing the group concept in this graphic - why is electricity meter in the Group group? And why is that electricity meter is Itself while Nest "A User"

What seems to be missing in this graphic and the blog entries is the concept that both the Nest and the Electricity Mater are part of my house and I may prefer to think of them as part of a collection as opposed to individual items - or is that what the Group was trying to address

--Andrew

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Madsen <pmadsen@pingidentity.com> wrote:

Hi Benoit, thanks for reading :-)

I completely agree that some things will *not* act on behalf of a particular user (or different users, or a group) - things in factory floor, smart cities, etc

I've been thinking about a taxonomy that made this distinction, as well as who is the subject of the data that the thing collects and sends

enclosed is a graphic of my thinking so far

of course, a thing 'acting on behalf of itself' is meant to be shorthand for the thing acting on behalf of some other non human entity, e.g. company, city, government, etc

paul

p.s. 'alien epidermal implant' is a joke :-)

On 10/8/13 11:17 AM, BAILLEUX Benoit OLNC/OLPS wrote:

Hello all,

Today, I read two interesting blog entries from Paul Madsen, wandering in the IoT world :

- How objects interact: "OAuth for multi-thing coordination use cases" (see http://connectid.blogspot.fr/2013/10/oauth-for-multi-thing-coordination-use.html)

- How objects impersonate their user: "Identities - Thing & User" (see http://connectid.blogspot.fr/2013/10/identities-thing-user.html)

The second one makes me wonder:
- Must things inevitably act on behalf of a person?
- What if an object is smart enough to have an identity, but not enough to act on behalf or to be associated with a human?

Regards,

_______________________________________________
DG-IDoT mailing list
DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot