Re: [WG-UMA] groundwork for non-vertical-specific legal use cases

Thanks Dazza, <snip>

UMA legal use cases that focus on the specific rights or obligations linked to protected resources are tractable and totally avoid the needless debates about what "ownership" does or should it could mean if only everybody would agree to that definition.

+1 - In reference to User Managed Vs. User control, consent, like UMA is agnostic, it just helps create the directive for data sharing, whatever the flavour of ownership.

<snip>

In doing an AS relationship analysis that "non-vertical-specific" we have an opportunity to start with a very clean slate and just ask the level-setting question: what is the basic legal relationship and which roles in the relationship is played by each "party" (aka actor or entity or person) identified in the use case? This is a great question to level set for the call next week and provides a sound foundation upon which to clearly layer vertical-specific relationships and other important sources of context. It is possible to identify, clarify and simplify the context of use cases by just naming the legal roles/relationships of parties conducting transactions or other interactions. Once the legal dimension of context can be refined down to a few defined roles and interactions it is a lot easier to speculate on and have an opportunity to successfully deliberately structure the relationships and transactions to achieve more predictable intended legal results.

I agree, all the plumbing is in already. Consent (and relevant laws) are already apart of the infrastructure. The consent record format we are working on is designed to specify and help tease out the legal requirements/privileges (with purpose and data resources specifications) that are specified in privacy (or legal) policy. I think just being able to to see if the UMA authorisations match the consent records will be huge and provide a valuable way to check and test negative use cases. .

<snip>

I commit to publish a roles and definitions wiki page that is cross-referenced/cross-linked to the use cases we have so far and - more importantly - where the group can continue compiling named roles and other defined terms. Each term will be at an HTML anchor point to simplify and streamline identification of the meaning people are using and to provide a "ready to use" resource for popping in the eventual set of terms and meanings chosen by the group for use in a final set of legal use cases and corresponding recommendations.

This is great ! First tracing Use Case views of the (BLT) ecosystem from a legal, information sharing and access control perspective. Then we can look at this from multiple perspective to see perhaps the best way for all of the components to work together. Mark

Thanks, - Dazza

| Sent from my iPhone | Please Forgive Typos _________________ | Dazza Greenwood, JD | CIVICS.com http://civics.com/, Founder & Principal | MIT Media Lab, Visiting Scientist | Vmail: 617.500.3644 tel:617.500.3644 | Email: dazza@CIVICS.com mailto:dazza@CIVICS.com | Biz: http://CIVICS.com http://civics.com/ | MIT: https://law.MIT.edu https://law.mit.edu/ | Me: DazzaGreenwood.com http://dazzagreenwood.com/ | Twitter: @DazzaGreenwood | Google+: google.com/+DazzaGreenwood http://google.com/+DazzaGreenwood | LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/DazzaGreenwood http://linkedin.com/in/DazzaGreenwood | GitHub: github.com/DazzaGreenwood/Interface http://github.com/DazzaGreenwood/Interface

On Aug 21, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Eve Maler mailto:eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:

...

AI: Dazza and Eve: Coordinate on producing 2 or 3 candidate distinctive use cases that flesh out the AS possibilities, non-vertical-specific and identity-federation-agnostic.

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