re: should webids denote people or accounts? from seth russell on 2014-05-17 (public-webid@w3.org from may 2014)

source: me on W3C WebID forum

Well i think most of us tell stories to ourselves and other about who we are. Each story is about a different persona. I think the WebID denotes a particular persona of a particular individual rather than the individual their selves. That way, if a person is consistent among different accounts and profile pages, using always the same identification for who they are being at the time ... er for the same person ... things should not get confused. We are all probably doing that already, but we don't always want to admit it out loud.

it looks like a kind of a consensus is forming ...

source:me on W3C WebID forum

+1    Either "Actor" and "Persona" work for me.    

So then an Actor (or alternatively a Persona) gets some name (WebId) 
and  has the authority to act some role for a natural legal entity.   
That works  for me as long as there is *not* some rule built into the 
protocol that  specifies that the natural legal entity must be stated.  
That should be an  option of the Account.  So that a Bank would probably 
insist that the  natural legal entity was named and authenticated.  Also 
a Corporation would  be a persona in that sense, acting on the authority 
of a *collection* of  the natural legal agents sitting on its board of 
directors.    

I suppose it is kind of a philosophical point how serious we get about 
the  criteria "natural".  Me, i like it in there ... but who am i to say LOL.    

seth

...

Comments

Seth says

Einai 2014-05-17 09:51:06 17391

MPD anyone?

Yep you could call it "Dissociative identity" if you like ... but calling it a "disorder" is just your judgement. Fact is many people have secret lives even on the Internet ... or they break up their different functional lives and don't want them getting mixed up. Our techniques of identification should acknowledge that and not legislate that everyone just play one unified person as thy live on the Internet.

Mark de LA says

No judgements here at all either! I do love this picture from the Wikpedia on Personae:

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-05-17 09:59:05 17391

Einai 2014-05-17 09:51:06 17391

MPD anyone?

Yeah, some say MPD doesn't really exist, but argue a lot about it with their other identities.

The "disorder" - just mean that it is not orderly, i.e. One personality doesn't remember or correlate with the other.

Seth says

Einai 2014-05-17 10:11:04 17391

There might even be a battle between the personae & integrity in there somewhere.

Yes, but the internet technology should not try to enforce integrity. ... er, obviously.

Seth says

Einai 2014-05-17 10:02:19 17391

Maybe a blockchain of ID's in a wallet a la Bitcoin. Self as wallet in the CyberWorld, eh?

Will that ever answer the question of "Who am I?".

i think what some in the W3C are working towards is a wallet in your browser. When you log into a server, you choose your identity from a pull down list, or it would just default to the last one you used at at site. You know this is already happening ... the only question is the exact semantics of sombody's WebID ... does it denote the account, or the body of the person? I just noticed that people almost certainly want to use the same persona identification among all the accounts in which they tell the same story about themselves. That is just practical ... no judgements involved.

Mark de LA says

Einai 2014-05-17 10:18:53 17391

2014-05-17 10:14:12 17391

& nobody is saying enforce anything. The ontology of Integrity is wholly personal.
To me it is simply one login ID covers all. The rest has cyberworld privacy issues.

Google has recently faced France & the right to be anonymous.

Seth says

source: me on public-webid forum

I think an Account is an Agent operated by some Entity (like Facebook,
Google, Bank, etc)  in service to some Persona.  The Persona agent must
authenticate or identify itself to the Account agent.  So it would would be
confusing, should be accept that ontology, to confuse "Account" with
"Persona" ... er at least confusing to me.

...

Seth says

incidentally if you follow the train of thought in the about link, you will find that people who deal with ontology on a practical level are using, with me, the word "agent" in a meaningful way. Inadvertently it now appears that {Persona subClass Agent} and perhaps {HumanPerson subClass Agent} and perhaps even {Corporation subClass Agent} will become part of the WebId specification. I like to think that i had a small part in that. It could have been all munged together as "Account". Note also that Agents do not contain Corporations

. It does seem to me that i can talk to people using words the way i do and they understand me quite well indeed

.
I wonder who is the odd man out here

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-05-20 19:14:50 17391

source: mark
What's practical about abstraction?
What's fun about abstraction except to an intellectual?

... er, well it allowed you to ask those questions.

You can't say shit that is not abstract, except perhaps something disinterested like "the cat is on the mat", but even that is chiggy because it refers to no particular cat, nor a GPS location of any mat, whatever the hell that might be. I guess your agenda to degrade my ability to communicate to you is not content merely denying my use of certain words used in a diciplines in which you didn't happen to matriculate, but now even refuses to accept the process of distinction itself, not to mention the process of distinctions on distinctions.

indeed!

WOW!

re: should webids denote people or accounts? from seth russell on 2014-05-17 (public-webid@w3.org from may 2014)

Tags

Comments

See Also