[DG-IDoT] Defining when a thing has an identity
pmadsen at pingidentity.com
Tue Sep 24 11:35:48 CDT 2013
I see things having their own identity (perhaps provisioned at
manufacturing etc), but when the nature of an interaction or message
happens 'on behalf of' a particular user, then that user's identity must
also be captured & expressed
On 9/24/13 12:32 PM, Son Han wrote:
> Dear All,
> I have a quick comment on the Benoit second question about "an object
> in fact just carrying or using its owner's identity?". I suppose
> objects in the future could be able to do a lot of things
> automatically, to react to emergency situation for example. When
> things become "smart", their identities then could be something else
> rather than "owner's identities", where the concept of ownership would
> be quite blur. Moving forward to IoT vision and a smart world, well,
> things should have there own identities rather than rely on their owners.
> Thank you.
> Best regards,
> Son Han
> On 9/24/2013 5:43 PM, BAILLEUX Benoit OLNC/OLPS wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> During last teleconference, I have asked a question that has not been
>> answered during the call. Ingo suggested to ask to the whole list.
>> Where to put the limit, for a thing or object, between a simple list of
>> attributes and a whole/real "identity" for that object? Does the object
>> need a minimal computing power to have an identity? Or the simple fact
>> to be able to answer a request (even if it is "passive") is enough for
>> that? Are there other criteria (like, for an object, just having a
>> unique ID)?
>> Another question: in a lot of cases, instead of a proper identity,
>> doesn't an object in fact just carrying or using its owner's identity?
>> A bit longer:
>> Nowadays, a lot of devices, objects and things are able to communicate,
>> either actively or passively (upon request, as with RFID). Most of those
>> objects have an identifier and often a set of attributes. Some of them
>> are able to react to their environment. But in some cases, it seems to
>> me that certain object don't have a "digital identity" on their own. I
>> think that they just carry a set of complementary attributes for another
>> entity, or just have a set of attributes, but not a "real" identity, or
>> act on behalf of another entity.
>> - A light-bulb has an address (IPv6?) and some attributes (e.g.
>> firstUsed:<a date> and onFor:<a duration>). Is it a real identity?
>> - A micro-chip has just an ID number. Isn't that number just an
>> attribute of the identity of the pet wearing it under its skin?
>> - Consider a car. It sometimes act on behalf of its owner or driver
>> (when paying a toll), and sometimes for itself (when connected to the
>> computer of the garage).
>> - What is the difference between an economic good with a paper label
>> with a serial number, or with a label with a barcode or with a passive
>> contactless chip (RFID)? Does only the latter have a (digital) identity?
>> Should we build a typology of identities (or "nearly identities")? If we
>> can define the wider spectrum of possible identities definitions, then
>> we can choose which part of that spectrum we want to address in the WG.
>> Finally, objects acting on behalf of their owners or with the identities
>> of their owners (e.g. a smartphone sending a notification) seem to be
>> something quite common. The owner's identity is then pervasive and
>> exists (sometimes partially and momentarily) in several objects at the
>> same time. The identity has different forms in the various objects,
>> depending on their needs and their capabilities, but it's really the
>> same everywhere. I think that situation dramatically needs an
>> "overarching Identity Framework" to "recognize and manage identities
>> across different solutions".
>> Do you agree?
>> I'm sorry for posting this so late. Please ask me if my poor English is
>> not understandable.
> DG-IDoT mailing list
> DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the DG-IDoT