[DG-BSC] Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday August 2

Scott Shorter sshorter at kimbleassociates.com
Tue Aug 2 10:21:02 CDT 2016


Sorry, I meant blockchain ledger.

On Aug 2, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Scott Shorter <sshorter at kimbleassociates.com<mailto:sshorter at kimbleassociates.com>> wrote:

I suggested to the chat that the lightbulbs in the recent edit can be broken out into individual use cases. As mentioned on the call, the use cases will form an ontology, these would be different instances of “record X on a blockchain ledger”, with a different X for each lightbulb.

On Aug 2, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Eve Maler <eve.maler at forgerock.com<mailto:eve.maler at forgerock.com>> wrote:

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-08+%28August+2016%29+Meetings#id-2016-08(August2016)Meetings-TuesdayAugust2

Agenda:

  *   Work on "Trust and verification in a health research context" (was: Alice Consents to Health Research) and discuss implications for technologies sections in the report

Attending: Eve, Jeff S, Andrew, Thomas, John W, Matisse, Scott S, Jim, Adam, Domenico, John M, Colin "L"

The new title is a working title. And...now it's Alice participates in Bob's Research Study<http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Alice+participates+in+Bob%27s+Research+Study>!

There's a bifurcation of PHI for healthcare and PHI for health research.

The biggest question: Is there a role for the blockchain? The three lightbulbs highlight the particular steps where this comes into play. Thomas notes there is a bit of a crisis of repeatability in research. Could that be addressed with the new technologies somehow? John suspects that this is where putting the protocols (the descriptions of the studies) themselves on the blockchain would be more productive, and this is where his mention of a "predecessor or stereotypical case" of Human Research Consent could encompass that solution. He points to https://clinicaltrials.gov<https://clinicaltrials.gov/>.

John M has written up a use case on his blog that leverages the blockchain for blinded (lightly deidentified) identity, not for the consent per se, in a research context. Jeff comments that if hashing for pseudonymity is being suggested (yes), then the entire suite of technologies that constitute "blockchain" may not be needed.

One theme of blockchain application, therefore, is "identity proving". Another that we started with was "agreement proving" ??

So:

Do we have use case bundles that are related, and can we write them quickly and with their relatedness exposed? (whether that relation is hierarchy, mind map, or whatever) It appears so, yes.

Does it make sense to think of problems blockchain purports to solve, in specific, as things like "proving identity", "proving of agreement status" (e.g. whether consent has currently been given) – or "proving an event"? (suggested in the chat), and "proving that conditions have been met" (smart contracts)?

Eve will reach out to Bart Suichies' erstwhile colleagues at the Philips Blockchain Lab to see if they have someone interested to join.

There's no doubt that today's notes are incomplete or – gasp! – even wrong in spots. Please correct in followup email.

Eve Maler
ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology
Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits are coming to<http://summits.forgerock.com/> Sydney, London, and Paris!

_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org>
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-bsc/attachments/20160802/e44235b4/attachment.html>


More information about the DG-BSC mailing list