attempt to group our problem spaces in the IDoT

Ingo.Friese＠telekom.de

4 Oct 2013 4 Oct '13

10:03 a.m.

Hi, I'm not available for the next 3 weeks. Frank Mildner is as friendly as to run our next calls. In the attached document I made a first attempt to group / focus our problem spaces taken from our use-cases. Some descriptions in the paper are taken from a paper I intend to submit to a conference (with the help of Ning) Feel free to discuss it and to give comments. Ingo Btw: Thanks to Benoit and all repliers...interesting question and good answers. I'll put them together somehow.

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 2.3 KB)
Identities_of_Things_DG_fordiscussion.doc (application/msword — 50.0 KB)

Show replies by date

BAILLEUX Benoit OLNC/OLPS

8 Oct 8 Oct

12:17 p.m.

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....) - 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, -- Benoît Bailleux Orange Labs, P&S / Architecture — Security — Enablers Open Source referent Phone: +33 2 96 05 20 37

Paul Madsen

12:23 p.m.

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....)

- 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,

Andrew Nash

16 Oct 16 Oct

2:19 a.m.

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 --Andrew On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Madsen 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.... )

- 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

Paul Madsen

6:39 a.m.

hey Andrew, thanks for reading below On 10/16/13 1:19 AM, Andrew Nash wrote:

...

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"

the meter is attached to the house - the data it collects represents the aggregated electricity use of those in the house, as opposed to an individual user. Of course, this can collapse .... the distinction between the Nest and the meter is that the homeowner bought & installed the Nest - the electricity provider owns and manages the meter. While that provider may give the homeowner access to the data the meter collects, I'm sure the provider still feels that it owns that data

...

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

'group' refers to users, see above I think grouping of things would be another axis. I can see it as important as a consent & management optimization (eg authorize all these lightbulbs I just screwed in ...) paul

...

--Andrew

--Andrew

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Madsen mailto: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....)

- 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 mailto:DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot

Frank.Mildner＠telekom.de

8:57 a.m.

Hi Paul & Andrew,

...

From my point of view we need a common understanding of the below mentioned " group concept" in the identity of things field.

Another important issue is the pairing of things and pairing of things and user. Looking forward on an interesting discussion next Thursday. See you Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Viele Grüße / Best Regards Frank Mildner DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG T-Labs (Research & Innovation) Dipl.-Ing. Frank Mildner Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7, 64295 Darmstadt +4961515834747 (Tel.) +496151899838 (Fax) E-Mail: frank.mildner@telekom.de www.telekom.comhttp://www.telekom.com/ Erleben, was verbindet. DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus Höttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn Grosse Veränderungen fangen klein an - Ressourcen schonen und nicht jede E-Mail drucken. Von: dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Madsen Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 11:39 An: Andrew Nash Cc: dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org Betreff: Re: [DG-IDoT] attempt to group our problem spaces in the IDoT hey Andrew, thanks for reading below On 10/16/13 1:19 AM, Andrew Nash wrote: 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" the meter is attached to the house - the data it collects represents the aggregated electricity use of those in the house, as opposed to an individual user. Of course, this can collapse .... the distinction between the Nest and the meter is that the homeowner bought & installed the Nest - the electricity provider owns and manages the meter. While that provider may give the homeowner access to the data the meter collects, I'm sure the provider still feels that it owns that data 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 'group' refers to users, see above I think grouping of things would be another axis. I can see it as important as a consent & management optimization (eg authorize all these lightbulbs I just screwed in ...) paul --Andrew --Andrew On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Madsen mailto: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....) - 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.orgmailto:DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot

Paul Madsen

9 a.m.

Hi Frank, some thoughts on 'pairing of thing and user' http://connectid.blogspot.ca/2013/10/identities-thing-user.html regards paul p.s. what is happening next Thursday? On 10/16/13 7:57 AM, Frank.Mildner@telekom.de wrote:

...

Hi Paul & Andrew,

From my point of view we need a common understanding of the below mentioned " group concept" in the identity of things field.

Another important issue is the pairing of things and pairing of things and user.

Looking forward on an interesting discussion next Thursday.

See you

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Viele Grüße / Best Regards Frank Mildner

*DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG* T-Labs (Research & Innovation) Dipl.-Ing. Frank Mildner Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7, 64295 Darmstadt +4961515834747 (Tel.)

+496151899838 (Fax)

E-Mail: frank.mildner@telekom.de

www.telekom.com http://www.telekom.com/

*Erleben, was verbindet.***

*DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG *Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus Höttges,

Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn

*Grosse Veränderungen fangen klein an **--**Ressourcen schonen und nicht jede E-Mail drucken.*

*Von:*dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Madsen *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 11:39 *An:* Andrew Nash *Cc:* dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org *Betreff:* Re: [DG-IDoT] attempt to group our problem spaces in the IDoT

hey Andrew, thanks for reading

below

On 10/16/13 1:19 AM, Andrew Nash wrote:

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"

the meter is attached to the house - the data it collects represents the aggregated electricity use of those in the house, as opposed to an individual user. Of course, this can collapse ....

the distinction between the Nest and the meter is that the homeowner bought & installed the Nest - the electricity provider owns and manages the meter. While that provider may give the homeowner access to the data the meter collects, I'm sure the provider still feels that it owns that data

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

'group' refers to users, see above

I think grouping of things would be another axis. I can see it as important as a consent & management optimization (eg authorize all these lightbulbs I just screwed in ...)

paul

--Andrew

--Andrew

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Madsen mailto: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....)

- 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 mailto:DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot

j stollman

20 Oct 20 Oct

1:26 p.m.

Disappointingly, I have been unable to attend the last several calls because of a work commitment. And this is likely to continue for me for another month. But I have reserved next week to attend IIW. How many of you will be there? Perhaps we can have a few sessions on this at IIW and gather thoughts from a wider population. Thank you. Jeff On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:57 AM, wrote:

...

Hi Paul & Andrew,****

** **

From my point of view we need a common understanding of the below mentioned “ group concept” in the identity of things field.****

** **

Another important issue is the pairing of things and pairing of things and user.****

** **

Looking forward on an interesting discussion next Thursday.****

** **

See you****

** **

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Viele Grüße / Best Regards Frank Mildner****

** **

** **

*DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG* T-Labs (Research & Innovation) Dipl.-Ing. Frank Mildner Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7, 64295 Darmstadt +4961515834747 (Tel.)****

+496151899838 (Fax)****

E-Mail: frank.mildner@telekom.de****

www.telekom.com

****

*Erleben, was verbindet.** *

*DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG *Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus Höttges,****

Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn ****

*Grosse Veränderungen fangen klein an **–** Ressourcen schonen und nicht jede E-Mail drucken.* ****

** **

** **

*Von:* dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto: dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Madsen *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 11:39 *An:* Andrew Nash *Cc:* dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org *Betreff:* Re: [DG-IDoT] attempt to group our problem spaces in the IDoT** **

** **

hey Andrew, thanks for reading

below****

On 10/16/13 1:19 AM, Andrew Nash wrote:****

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" ****

the meter is attached to the house - the data it collects represents the aggregated electricity use of those in the house, as opposed to an individual user. Of course, this can collapse ....

the distinction between the Nest and the meter is that the homeowner bought & installed the Nest - the electricity provider owns and manages the meter. While that provider may give the homeowner access to the data the meter collects, I'm sure the provider still feels that it owns that data

****

** **

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****

'group' refers to users, see above

I think grouping of things would be another axis. I can see it as important as a consent & management optimization (eg authorize all these lightbulbs I just screwed in ...)

paul

****

** **

--Andrew****

****

--Andrew****

** **

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Madsen 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.... )

- 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****

** **

** **

_______________________________________________ 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

Paul Madsen

1:34 p.m.

Hi Jeff, I'll be at IIW paul On 10/20/13 12:26 PM, j stollman wrote:

...

Disappointingly, I have been unable to attend the last several calls because of a work commitment. And this is likely to continue for me for another month.

But I have reserved next week to attend IIW. How many of you will be there? Perhaps we can have a few sessions on this at IIW and gather thoughts from a wider population.

Thank you.

Jeff

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:57 AM, mailto:Frank.Mildner@telekom.de> wrote:

Hi Paul & Andrew,

From my point of view we need a common understanding of the below mentioned “ group concept” in the identity of things field.

Another important issue is the pairing of things and pairing of things and user.

Looking forward on an interesting discussion next Thursday.

See you

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Viele Grüße / Best Regards Frank Mildner

*DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG* T-Labs (Research & Innovation) Dipl.-Ing. Frank Mildner Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7, 64295 Darmstadt +4961515834747 tel:%2B4961515834747 (Tel.)

+496151899838 tel:%2B496151899838 (Fax)

E-Mail: frank.mildner@telekom.de mailto:frank.mildner@telekom.de

www.telekom.com http://www.telekom.com/

*Erleben, was verbindet.***

*DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG *Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus Höttges,

Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn

*Grosse Veränderungen fangen klein an **–**Ressourcen schonen und nicht jede E-Mail drucken.*

*Von:*dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org mailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org mailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Madsen *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 11:39 *An:* Andrew Nash *Cc:* dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org mailto:dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org *Betreff:* Re: [DG-IDoT] attempt to group our problem spaces in the IDoT

hey Andrew, thanks for reading

below

On 10/16/13 1:19 AM, Andrew Nash wrote:

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"

the meter is attached to the house - the data it collects represents the aggregated electricity use of those in the house, as opposed to an individual user. Of course, this can collapse ....

the distinction between the Nest and the meter is that the homeowner bought & installed the Nest - the electricity provider owns and manages the meter. While that provider may give the homeowner access to the data the meter collects, I'm sure the provider still feels that it owns that data

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

'group' refers to users, see above

I think grouping of things would be another axis. I can see it as important as a consent & management optimization (eg authorize all these lightbulbs I just screwed in ...)

paul

--Andrew

--Andrew

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Madsen mailto: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....)

- 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 mailto:DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot

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

-- Jeff Stollman stollman.j@gmail.com mailto: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

Frank.Mildner＠telekom.de

22 Oct 22 Oct

12:41 p.m.

Hi Jeff and all, I will be at IIW call to and try to moderate the call on behalf of Ingo. Hear about you in 20 minutes. Best Regards Frank Mildner DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG T-Labs (Research & Innovation) Dipl.-Ing. Frank Mildner Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7, 64295 Darmstadt +4961515834747 (Tel.) +496151899838 (Fax) E-Mail: frank.mildner@telekom.de www.telekom.comhttp://www.telekom.com/ Erleben, was verbindet. DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus Höttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn Grosse Veränderungen fangen klein an - Ressourcen schonen und nicht jede E-Mail drucken. Von: Paul Madsen [mailto:pmadsen@pingidentity.com] Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Oktober 2013 18:35 An: j stollman; Mildner, Frank Cc: Andrew Nash; dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org Betreff: Re: [DG-IDoT] attempt to group our problem spaces in the IDoT Hi Jeff, I'll be at IIW paul On 10/20/13 12:26 PM, j stollman wrote: Disappointingly, I have been unable to attend the last several calls because of a work commitment. And this is likely to continue for me for another month. But I have reserved next week to attend IIW. How many of you will be there? Perhaps we can have a few sessions on this at IIW and gather thoughts from a wider population. Thank you. Jeff On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:57 AM, mailto:Frank.Mildner@telekom.de> wrote: Hi Paul & Andrew,

...

From my point of view we need a common understanding of the below mentioned " group concept" in the identity of things field.

Another important issue is the pairing of things and pairing of things and user. Looking forward on an interesting discussion next Thursday. See you Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Viele Grüße / Best Regards Frank Mildner DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG T-Labs (Research & Innovation) Dipl.-Ing. Frank Mildner Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7, 64295 Darmstadt +4961515834747tel:%2B4961515834747 (Tel.) +496151899838tel:%2B496151899838 (Fax) E-Mail: frank.mildner@telekom.demailto:frank.mildner@telekom.de www.telekom.comhttp://www.telekom.com/ Erleben, was verbindet. DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus Höttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn Grosse Veränderungen fangen klein an - Ressourcen schonen und nicht jede E-Mail drucken. Von: dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Madsen Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 11:39 An: Andrew Nash Cc: dg-idot@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org Betreff: Re: [DG-IDoT] attempt to group our problem spaces in the IDoT hey Andrew, thanks for reading below On 10/16/13 1:19 AM, Andrew Nash wrote: 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" the meter is attached to the house - the data it collects represents the aggregated electricity use of those in the house, as opposed to an individual user. Of course, this can collapse .... the distinction between the Nest and the meter is that the homeowner bought & installed the Nest - the electricity provider owns and manages the meter. While that provider may give the homeowner access to the data the meter collects, I'm sure the provider still feels that it owns that data 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 'group' refers to users, see above I think grouping of things would be another axis. I can see it as important as a consent & management optimization (eg authorize all these lightbulbs I just screwed in ...) paul --Andrew --Andrew On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Madsen mailto: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....) - 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.orgmailto:DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot _______________________________________________ DG-IDoT mailing list DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot -- Jeff Stollman stollman.j@gmail.commailto: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

Andrew Nash

1:42 p.m.

I will be there - happy to find some time --Andrew On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 9:26 AM, j stollman wrote:

...

Disappointingly, I have been unable to attend the last several calls because of a work commitment. And this is likely to continue for me for another month.

But I have reserved next week to attend IIW. How many of you will be there? Perhaps we can have a few sessions on this at IIW and gather thoughts from a wider population.

Thank you.

Jeff

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:57 AM, wrote:

...
Hi Paul & Andrew,****

** **

From my point of view we need a common understanding of the below mentioned “ group concept” in the identity of things field.****

** **

Another important issue is the pairing of things and pairing of things and user.****

** **

Looking forward on an interesting discussion next Thursday.****

** **

See you****

** **

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Viele Grüße / Best Regards Frank Mildner****

** **

** **

*DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG* T-Labs (Research & Innovation) Dipl.-Ing. Frank Mildner Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7, 64295 Darmstadt +4961515834747 (Tel.)****

+496151899838 (Fax)****

E-Mail: frank.mildner@telekom.de****

www.telekom.com

****

*Erleben, was verbindet.** *

*DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG *Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus Höttges,****

Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn ****

*Grosse Veränderungen fangen klein an **–** Ressourcen schonen und nicht jede E-Mail drucken.* ****

** **

** **

*Von:* dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto: dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Madsen *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 11:39 *An:* Andrew Nash *Cc:* dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org *Betreff:* Re: [DG-IDoT] attempt to group our problem spaces in the IDoT* ***

** **

hey Andrew, thanks for reading

below****

On 10/16/13 1:19 AM, Andrew Nash wrote:****

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" ****

the meter is attached to the house - the data it collects represents the aggregated electricity use of those in the house, as opposed to an individual user. Of course, this can collapse ....

the distinction between the Nest and the meter is that the homeowner bought & installed the Nest - the electricity provider owns and manages the meter. While that provider may give the homeowner access to the data the meter collects, I'm sure the provider still feels that it owns that data

****

** **

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****

'group' refers to users, see above

I think grouping of things would be another axis. I can see it as important as a consent & management optimization (eg authorize all these lightbulbs I just screwed in ...)

paul

****

** **

--Andrew****

****

--Andrew****

** **

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Madsen 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.... )

- 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****

** **

** **

_______________________________________________ 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

Paul Madsen

16 Oct 16 Oct

8:46 a.m.

added some context at http://connectid.blogspot.ca/2013/10/users-groups-things.html paul On 10/16/13 1:19 AM, Andrew Nash wrote:

...

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

--Andrew

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Madsen mailto: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....)

- 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 mailto:DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot

3982

Age (days ago)

4000

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

11 comments

6 participants

participants (6)

Andrew Nash
BAILLEUX Benoit OLNC/OLPS
Frank.Mildner＠telekom.de
Ingo.Friese＠telekom.de
j stollman
Paul Madsen

attempt to group our problem spaces in the IDoT

tags

participants (6)