Two thoughts: 1. "digital data resource" probably wants to be a defined term (and parameterized). 2. The issue of cumulation of roles in a single person should be dealt with outside of the definition of one of those roles. So the second sentence could be a part of construction rather than part of a definition. It could be part of some broader discussion of OK cumulations (and perhaps there are some interactions of cumulations that cause concern IAMAL). So: Cumulation of Roles. In any interaction, a same {Person} may have multiple roles, e.g., {Grantee}, {Grantor} and {Resource_Subject}. [Then see if we need something like: Obligations owed to or by a {Person} who has multiple roles (e.g. ...) shall cumulate. (Really not sure that I've well-crafted the phrase or understand all the consequences, it is merely ink on paper) ] On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Salvatore D'Agostino <sal@idmachines.com> wrote:
+1.. grant is very sympathetic to an authorization protocol
*From:* wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto: wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *Eve Maler *Sent:* Saturday, April 02, 2016 3:37 PM *To:* wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org WG *Subject:* [WG-UMA] [legal] New thoughts on "Grantee" vs. "Requesting Party"
After doing a bunch of somewhat related work having to do with consent, and working with the word Grantee in the "requesting party" slot, I came to really appreciate it for its brevity, and believe that it could suffice for our model definition purposes.
The definition might turn into something like this. Thoughts?
A {Person} to whom a {Grantor} may grant access to a digital data resource, and who, if granted access, uses a {Client} to achieve that access. In any one case a {Grantee} may be the same as, or different from, the {Grantor} or {Resource Subject}.
*Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
-- @commonaccord