I think this aligns us with HL7 as well, from which we got the suggested terms. 

(Although I'm not inherently opposed to "consent" language informally or in other settings, the reason "grant (access)" language is especially valuable for definitions is that UMA can be used in non-individual use cases as well as individual ones. I'm not sure if we'd naturally say, e.g., that corporations "consent".)

Eve Maler (sent from my iPad) | cell +1 425 345 6756

On Apr 2, 2016, at 4:12 PM, 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