Hi All,

first, a quick recap from today's meeting

• we talked about the idea to 'engage' and get some expertise from Knowledge Management Experts and the mentioned approaches (see my mail from yesterday regarding RoadMaps and vehicles). We havent concluded or decided on that yet. Lets wait if we get more replies to the mail and on that idea. Nevertheless I will personally reach out to the guys from ontotext, as I have other topics to discuss with them anyway.
• We then discussed the draft for the presentation at EIC, I hope I can send a draft  at least tomorrow
• finally, a discussion arose about topics that might be missed in the taxonomy (example: Risk Management).

My personal take on the later one: I dont think we should now specifically think about one missing topic in particular, but about the question in which dimension the taxonomy can/ should be extended if required, without the need to rewrite the whole BoK.

Should we add another Category? another slice? or another ring around the cake as a whole? Or maybe another 'deck'?

I would prefer either a new ring around the cake, or another deck.

But not another category or slice, as I do not think we have anything that is NOT either related to Identities, Authentication, Authorization and Management. And each of those can fully be described with Standards/Good Practice/Concepts/Regulations. In a worst case scenario, there is always the 'Management/Concept' combination, where everything can be sorted in, without shamefully getting red in the face.

T.

My view is that once a sub-domain can be accurately described in a reasonably stable way then it qualifies for inclusion in the BoK. We can have unfilled categories in the Taxonomy - no issue there with creating forward-looking branches because it's easy to adjust as needed, up until the point we fill in the BoK content (after that it's hard to change the taxonomy)

So: if you are the type to hang out at "Identity on the blockchain" kinds of events you might see taxonomy branches about those topics but no actual BoK content.

Check back in a few years, once things have been tried out more and there's a growing consensus (get it? ha!) on a few potentially viable paths forward and the writers can start finding and curating the content for the BoK.

The BoK is the stuff an ID Pro should know (loosely body of knowledge) and also the stuff an ID  Pro should know about (loosely taxonomy).

Finding the balance will be an ongoing challenge - but if content writers struggle to compose a reasonably sane description for a BoK section then we can suspect that it's still too early.

andrew.

Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP 
Independent Consultant
In Turn Information Management Consulting

o  +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, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Dan Blum <dan.blum@security-architect.com> wrote:

An interesting question is whether the BoK is to document the digital identity status quo, or to also move our shared understanding into relatively less-charted levels. For example, Ian Glazer proposed an innovative threat model, and a maturity model, that I haven't seen elsewhere. 

I summarize and link to the Changing Face/Fate of Identity talk from Ian in this post. You'll note reference to Ian's thinking that transparency and accountability controls must be added to preventative IAM controls. Note my thoughts there that applying these and other advanced controls will be challenging in the post-GDPR era - but perhaps essential for businesses to retain the ability to go-to-market with customers in digital. 

In short I believe that we may be earlier in the evolution of digital identity architecture than most think, and would be an advocate for a forward-looking BoK...

Looking forward to today's discussion!

Dan Blum

Security Architects Partners / KuppingerCole

Check out the blog at http://security-architect.com

----------------------

We are a highly-experienced group of consultants dedicated to helping clients plan, specify and develop security programs, policies and technology solutions.

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Megan Cannon <megan@kantarainitiative.org> wrote:

Greetings,

Please join us today for our BoK / Taxonomy meeting at 11am EDT. Dial in details are listed below; you may view the complete list of call details for each meeting by accessing the Kantara calendar.

All the best,

Megan

###

BoK/Taxonomy WG
Monday, April 24, 2017

11:00am to 12:00pm Eastern Daylight Time

Link to workspace: https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85492303

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/135593357

You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (571) 317-3116

Access Code: 135-593-357

More phone numbers
Australia: +61 2 8355 1034
Austria: +43 1 2060 92964
Belgium: +32 28 08 4372
Canada: +1 (647) 497-9372
Denmark: +45 69 91 84 58
Finland: +358 923 17 0556
France: +33 170 950 590
Germany: +49 692 5736 7206
Ireland: +353 19 030 053
Italy: +39 0 699 26 68 65
Netherlands: +31 208 080 759
New Zealand: +64 9 974 9579
Norway: +47 21 04 30 59
Spain: +34 931 76 1534
Sweden: +46 775 757 471
Switzerland: +41 435 0026 89
United Kingdom: +44 20 3713 5011

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready

--

Megan Cannon

Kantara Initiative, Inc.

_______________________________________________
DG-IDPro mailing list
DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro

_______________________________________________
DG-IDPro mailing list
DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro

_______________________________________________
DG-IDPro mailing list
DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro