Healthcare providers are physicians, therapists, nurses, etc. As such they are typically licensed to practice and they are employees or credentialed by a hospital or similar organization to provide
their services at certain facilities. As such these people have established attributes such as email addresses, license numbers and federal identifiers (National Provider ID, DEA#, etc.). They are also adults.
Patients on the other hand range in age from birth to >100 yrs. old, may or may not have an email address and certainly aren’t credentialed to be a patient nor do they have a national ID number
(at least not in the U.S.)
The align biopharma “standard” makes sense for providers working in life sciences since that set of individuals all share those common attributes. Notice also that the stakeholders that developed
this open standard are all pharma companies. Pardon the pun, but their standards are highly prescriptive to the set of individuals and the purpose that drives the need for identity/authentication.
Catherine Schulten
Direct: 954-290-1991
From: Chris Phillips [mailto:Chris.Phillips@canarie.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:19 AM
To: dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org; Catherine Schulten <catherine.schulten@lifemedid.com>
Subject: Re: [DG-IDPro] the need to develop a common vocabulary
Speaking of a 'common lexicon' here's one in the biopharma space fresh off the press (I think):
I haven't clicked through the non standard T&C's clickwrap around it however. Looks like they want to not be encumbered with restrictions on comments back?
Looks like the word 'standard' may be more opinion than fact. Hard to tell.
Catherine, inferring from the lifemedid.com domain, this sounds like an area your organization may circulate in .
Thoughts on how it informs things in the idPro space and the approach to common vocabulary?
C
From: <dg-idpro-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Catherine Schulten <catherine.schulten@lifemedid.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 10:04 AM
To: "dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org" <dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: [DG-IDPro] the need to develop a common vocabulary
Found this relevant paragraph in some research I was doing. The following from a NIST workshop held in Jan 2016:
Develop a common lexicon. Many participants identified a lack of standardized terminology regarding identity proofing processes and functions. For example, some
attendees used the term “verification” while others preferred “validation” for the same process. For the purposes of NIST’s work, attendees suggested a common vocabulary should be developed to help ensure consistency in the framework and across communities,
and that the taxonomy be aligned to the best extent possible with existing schemes.
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/nistir-8103/nistir_8103_draft.pdf
Catherine Schulten
VP of Product Management - OrangeHook, Inc. / LifeMed ID
3009 Douglas Blvd., STE 200, Roseville, CA 95661
Direct: 954-290-1991
Website|
LinkedIn|
Facebook|
Twitter|
YouTube
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail communication may contain confidential or legally privileged information and is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. Please do not read, copy, forward or store
this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. Any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by other than the intended recipient or that person's agent is strictly prohibited pursuant to the Electronic Communication
Privacy Act,18 USCA 2510. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by forwarding it by email to the sender and then delete it completely from your computer system.