[DG-IDoT] Defining when a thing has an identity

Son Han son.han at it-sudparis.eu
Tue Sep 24 11:46:08 CDT 2013

Yes, I think so. In case there's an owner, her/his identity should be 
also considered in the identity of things model

Thank you.
Best regards,

Son Han
On 9/24/2013 6:35 PM, Paul Madsen wrote:
> 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
> paul
> 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.
>>> Short:
>>> 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.
>>> Examples:
>>>   - 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.
>>> Regards,
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-IDoT mailing list
>> DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-idot/attachments/20130924/874df684/attachment.html>

More information about the DG-IDoT mailing list