Sure, and I think the answer is partly explained in Ingo's Object Identity use case.

Like Sal's suggestion, I think your contribution as to the scope of the identity owner needs to be added to the 'glossary page' of the spreadsheet (which hopefully, Sal is adding. :-)).

Cheers
Colin

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:20:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] Stawman framework for Use Case Analysis/comparison
From: stollman.j@gmail.com
To: sal@idmachines.com
CC: colin_wallis@hotmail.com; keith.uber@ubisecure.com; dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org

Colin,

I don't disagree with the strawman as depicted.  But I suspect that one area that may require further decomposition is the notion of "Identity Owner."  I am not certain what this indicates.  My first guess is that it is an attempt to specify the identity of the entity that "owns" the device.  To me this is one of the stickiest issues of IoT.  If I buy a device that collects my exercise data and presents it to me to help me manage my fitness, do I own the device?  Do I own the data it generates?  What if the device maker builds-in a data feed to their data warehouse to use the data to characterize the broader population of its users?  If they charge me a subscription fee to access my data, do I really "own" the device?

The car example adds even more complexity.  I buy a car, but it has a built-in data feed to the manufacturer that transmit my driving behavior, my location, whether or not my airbag has deployed.  Does it matter that I own the car, if the manufacturer owns the data?  What happens to the ownership of the historical data when I sell the car to someone else?  Are they entitled to the history?  Or is it personal data that I retain rights to?  (Could I buy a car formerly owned by a celebrity and analyze their data to profile them for an expose' in a magazine?)  "Owners" may not be "controllers."

While the issues of ownership can be resolved through contracts law, I think we need to consider the various ramifications in order to appreciate the ramifications of different contact arrangements.

Thank you.

Jeff


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Salvatore D'Agostino <sal@idmachines.com> wrote:

Colin,

 

Thanks for starting this.  I wonder if the following comments on in the spirit of what is going on here. 

 

As to measurement might that be related to a sense as in see, touch and those the units of those like lumens, calories.  Perhaps some kinds and classes of attributes are there.   This is kind of where I was going with the earlier notes in that they relates to the type of things you can do on the wires or radios in the previous set of docs.

 

Also seems you might have calibration as part of the registration of “”measurement”” as part of the identity lifecycle for those things measuring.

 

 

Sal

 

 

 

From: dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Colin Wallis
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:22 AM
To: Keith Uber; dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: [DG-IDoT] Stawman framework for Use Case Analysis/comparison

 

Thanks Keith

 

So to my action... veeeery basically... like this...

 

Lots needs doing I know, but do you kinda get my drift?

 

Cheers

Colin

From: Keith.Uber@ubisecure.com
To: dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:39:51 +0000
Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] IDoT telecon 2013-11-19 / Minutes

Minutes of the call are up on the wiki.


https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/hIHwAw


Cheers,
--Keith

 


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


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




--
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