The terms of a contract are potentially attributes or credentials signed by a party and held by another. The verifiable credentials work has been all about making the credentials machine-readable and signed using standard methods. This seems like the essence of interoperability.

VCs do not specify a particular set of attributes or require federation but support a diversity of vocabulary strategies.

Adrian

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 6:14 PM Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
Hey all, trying to follow up on/mention a few things at once, maybe that's inadvisable, but...
  • IANAL, of course, but keep in mind that there's a difference between a "contract" and a "license" when it comes to legal devices. Tim put a lot of thought into recommending using licenses (with a substrate of contracts) in our first report because of their properties and how they apply to UMA permissioning at the actual authorization granting stage. (See the "Licenses-*" edges vs. the other edges in our relationship model, and read the report for detail.)
  • Language: Smart contracting protocols, smart contracting, something along those lines... That helps! (Me, anyway.)
  • In terms of real-life use cases to build on: I agree being concrete is helpful! The deployed and on-the-way UMA systems I'm aware of use federated identity, not VCs. I'm hoping we can finally work on a "business model POC" shortly with one of them, btw. Adrian, can you help us understand what "contract interoperability" benefits would be gained by aligning with VCs?

Eve Maler
Cell or Signal +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl



On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:09 AM Lisa LeVasseur <lalevasseur@ieee.org> wrote:
I like Ricardian Contract.  I wan't part of the earlier discussions, but Smart Contract feels too specific.  Another option is, "smart contracting protocols" (thanks to David Reed  for that suggestion).  

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 12:19 PM Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
Just a note about smart contracts: In the past, we've discussed this, and felt that this is a leap that a lot of people won't be willing to make, since it implies a pretty huge and consequential (blockchain-based) technology stack that most aren't using (yet?). Pointing to a legal device from a technology artifact (or doing the reverse) in order to cement the linkage is fair game, though, as in the "Ricardian contract" sense Jim Hazard has introduced.

Eve Maler
Cell or Signal +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl



On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 12:45 PM Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com> wrote:
The conceptual model that we have introduced in the Consent & Information Sharing WG is a simplistic version of concepts of contract/agreement law.

a) A 'vendor' makes a 'service' available
b) A 'person' discovers the 'service' and wishes to try it
c) The 'vendor' offers terms which describes the exchange of 'valuable consideration' i.e. services for money; product for goodwill; whatever for whatever...
d) The 'person' reviews and accepts or rejects the terms
e) Both parties have a 'meeting of the minds' and form an intent to make an agreement, then enter into that agreement 
f) Record keeping happens
g) The 'valuable consideration' is exchanged
h) The agreement ends at some future time for one of many possible reasons (completion of service or time are very common)

Clearly the exact sequence is case-specific. Also, there are many variations around offer-negotiate-accept terms - for user-centric and VRM-type flows, the first offer might be from the person rather than from the vendor. And so on.
The Personal Data Receipt (a.k.a. "Consent Receipt") arises at f). 'Vendors' keep records of agreements and interactions for operational and potentially regulatory reasons. Individuals are never offered a 'receipt' unless the interaction is a sales transaction (and even then, not always). The Personal Data Receipt is intended to be the person-side record that, once enough are accumulated in the person's vault/wallet, can be analyzed in the same way that Quicken or Mint analyses and manages financial statements and receipts.

An imperfect flow diagram of the above is here: 
with more text here:

On first glance, the "machine readable licence" shows up in c), d) and f). The specific form of the license is secondary to my mind - as long as it identifies the parties, describes the terms, describes the restrictions, and is tamper-evident - there are a few other properties...

So the 'consent receipt' is definitely not the same thing as the 'machine readable license' - but they probably occupy the same place in the 'agreement flow concept'.

CIS WG is creating v2 of the receipt spec - and it will be a generalized data receipt. It should be possible to create some kind of profile of the eventual v2 that accommodates the UMA license use case (or not - we can discuss)

andrew.

Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP 
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 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a
Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security 



On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:22 AM Tim Reiniger <tsreiniger@gmail.com> wrote:
Looks like we need to solidify/formalize the “machine readable license” concept. Perhaps the easiest approach is to treat it as one type/application of a “smart contract” unless anyone has an objection.

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On May 7, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:

They can be found here:

https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+legal+subgroup+notes#UMAlegalsubgroupnotes-2019-05-07

Eve Maler
Cell or Signal +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
--

Adrian Gropper MD

PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.