Re: [higgins-dev] Poll to schedule a call to talk about Nodereplacment--

[Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think that we may be getting to the authorization debut !

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

"Uppili Srinivasan" ---03/05/2008 01:42:18 AM---Drummond - Big let down. I was hoping this debate will go on at least until

From:	"Uppili Srinivasan" <uppili.srinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:	"Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	03/05/2008 01:42 AM
Subject:	Re: [higgins-dev] Poll to schedule a call to talk about Nodereplacment--take two

---

Drummond - Big let down.  I was hoping this debate will go on at least until 
the next f2f.
Ok, I can live with the choice, if you promise to take up some other debate 
with Tony ... umm, how about proposing a fat (call it robust) access control 
framework within iDAS :-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'" 
<higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:03 PM
Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] Poll to schedule a call to talk about 
Nodereplacment--take two


> So I got a chance to talk with Tony about this today when we were on a 
> panel
> together at the IDtrust Symposium (after a lot of fun ribbing back and 
> forth
> -- some of it live on the panel ;-)
>
> He lost no opportunity to point out how many times the word "entity" was
> used in the presentations (which happened to be about reputation). And how
> few times "node" was used (well, actually, none ;-)
>
> Afterwards, I again explained my concern that if we adopt "entity" for 
> what
> is currently "node", we need to -- in certain very specific cases -- be 
> able
> to clearly distinguish between "entity" and the thing-being-represented --
> the debate we were having this weekend.
>
> But the new idea was that if "entity" by itself ALWAYS means (in the 
> context
> of anything to do with Higgins) the representation, then the only time we
> would need to add a modifier would be those few cases where we need to
> explicitly refer to the thing-being-represented.
>
> In IM with Paul tonight, we agreed there's an obvious choice for that 
> term:
> "represented entity".
>
> Can folks live with "Entity" (replacement for "Node", formerly "Digital
> Subject") and "Represented Entity" (replacement for previous meaning of
> "Entity")?
>
> If so, here would now be the definition of "Correlation" (translated
> directly from http://wiki.eclipse.org/I-Node_Correlation), which 
> originally
> kicked off this whole discussion at the last F2F:
>
>    * An Entity Correlation is a kind of Attribute of a source Entity.
>    * Each value of a Entity Correlation identifies a target Entity.
>    * Each source-target Entity pair expresses that both Entities are
> representations of the same Represented Entity.
>
> =Drummond
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Trevithick
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:24 PM
>> To: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'
>> Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] Poll to schedule a call to talk aboutNode
>> replacment--take tw
>>
>> Yeah, I was worried about the fatigue factor too. If enough folks don't
>> sign
>> up to the latest doodle poll, then we'll just go ahead and change Node to
>> Entity as per the vote.
>>
>> Tony wrote:
>> >
>> > Paul it could be that people are getting a little tired  of the topic
>> and
>> > not sure how many times we have to discuss this to get the magic answer
>> >
>> > What are you looking for in this call. I have seen nothing that would
>> > change my choice
>> >
>> > -----------------
>> > Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld.
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Paul Trevithick" [paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> > Sent: 03/04/2008 02:44 PM
>> > To: "'Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions'"
>> > <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Subject: [higgins-dev] Poll to schedule a call to talk about Node
>> > replacment    --take two
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I just looked at the "old" poll and only Drummond, Mary, Tom and I have
>> > responded. This doesn't constitute a quorum for this topic IMO, so
>> > consider
>> > the above poll closed.
>> >
>> > Below is a new, replacement poll that includes slots for wed, thurs,
>> > Friday.
>> > Hopefully this time we'll get more participants.
>> >
>> > New Poll: http://doodle.ch/ekbez89udes8384r <-- vote here
>> >
>> > -Paul
>> >
>> > Old Poll: http://doodle.ch/participation.html?pollId=7sfxpr6hvu29wnys
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev