To me the reason the problem goes beyond simply authentication + attributes is that we are providing a resolution mechanism for Web 'principals' identified through consistent, machine readable, human friendly identifiers.
So 'Phillip Hallam-Baker' is not a useful identifier in this case as even though this example is unique, the class of identifiers it is a member of are not unique and thus not useful as machine readable identifiers. Contrawise any identifier of the form '=292rj239e!' might be machine readable in the right circumstances but certainly isn't human friendly. A principal here is most often going to be a Web User but could in certain circumstances be a computer process or agent running on a machine or could be some abstract corporate entity. A principal may be an individual or may be an individual acting in a specific role. So [email protected] and [email protected] might be the exact same person but respond differently due to the fact that in one role he may be acting in a corporate capacity. A principal might even by a physical location such as a building. malden#friendlies.com might be the Friendlies restaurant at Malden. A resolution of a principal may mean: * Authenticating an interaction with the principal * An email message * A log in attempt * A permission that has been granted by Principal A to Principal B * Initiating an interaction with the principal * An email message * An instant message * Making a reference to the principal * Asserting that the principal initiated a communication * Asserting that the principal has a property * Asserting that principal A is the source of assertion B concerning principal C On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, SitG Admin <[email protected]> wrote: >> My view is that we should stop talking about 'identity' all together. >> We should instead define the range of problems we want to solve as use >> cases and go solve them. Identity is too much of an abstraction, it >> can stand for anything. > > +1 to targeting problems rather than ideals (at that layer). > > The abstraction (of identity) is this community's strength and weakness; it > names the Purpose that brings everyone together, and it calls in people from > all over who may be able to contribute something. This concentration of > diverse ideas, though, doesn't create a single harmonious overlap of equally > distributed strength; there are outliers, ideas that aren't shared much by > others here. The two are opposite sides of the same coin. > > To restate this in a slightly different way, it's a popularity contest: none > of us can decide what idea will see the most adoption, since none of us can > make those decisions for everyone else. Nearly any idea is probably going to > be seen as a bad one by *some* person in the group (Santosh helps make > statistics come *true*!), and we should each be prepared to occasionally > bite the bullet and accept that it's *our* turn to be left out in the cold. > (Then leave our unpopular ideas behind and come in for a warm meal and > whatever work has got so many members of the community in the commons > house.) > > -Shade > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
