[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [higgins-dev] The case for "node" (RE: Draft ITU-TReporton definition of "identity")
|
Greg, thanks, you summed it up precisely.
Paul, wasn't there an action item from the last telecon to set up a
dedicated call on this? Tony and I are both going to be at the IDtrust
Symposium next week -- maybe we could fit it in during a break sometime on
Wednesday?
=Drummond
> -----Original Message-----
> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Byrd
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:57 PM
> To: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions
> Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] The case for "node" (RE: Draft ITU-TReporton
> definition of "identity")
>
> Our debate is not to determine the meaning of Entity. The ITU has defined
> it
> (in the document) as "Anything with a describable existence at some
> location
> within some timescale." This is already broader than the legal definition
> that
> you mentioned -- that's the point that I was trying to make.
>
> The debate here is what Higgins should call the digital representation of
> an
> Entity. We used to call it a DigitalSubject, and recently switched to
> Node.
> The current discussion is whether to stay with Node, move to Entity (in
> which
> case the digital representation is called by the same word as the thing
> itself),
> or find another word.
>
> ...Greg
>
>
> Thor Wolpert wrote:
> > Why is it (Entity) too restrictive? Is it worth trying to change the
> > current definition ... it might be easier, or wiser to leave the current
> > definition alone and add in something new for your more expansive view.
> >
> > On 3/1/08, *Greg Byrd* <gbyrd@xxxxxxxx <mailto:gbyrd@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> > This definition is too narrow, as entities should also include
> > devices, pets, etc.
> >
> > Of the terms I've heard so far, I think "persona" is the closest to
> > what we
> > mean. I don't like it, though, because it's too tied to
> > personhood. (And it
> > has three syllables -- right, Drummond?) And it has an awkward
> > plural. But it
> > does have the notion of representing a facet of the entity.
> >
> >
> > ...Greg
> >
> >
> > Thor Wolpert wrote:
> > > Entity seems to be well defined in legal contexts, it is either a
> > person
> > > or a legally registered incorporated business. A business that
> is a
> > > sole proprietorship or partnership is indistinguishable from the
> > > entities (human beings) that comprise it. That is also the case
> for
> > > taxation, and the taxation laws are fairly similar in the western
> > world
> > > (all are guilty until proven innocent type laws).
> > >
> > > Would it not be easier to just adopt this definition that an
> > entity is
> > > either a sentient being or an incorporated business?
> > >
> > > Thor hW
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > higgins-dev mailing list
> > higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > higgins-dev mailing list
> > higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
