[DG-BSC] FYI

John Moehrke johnmoehrke at gmail.com
Mon Aug 29 18:56:47 CDT 2016


Note in the USA the HHS/ONC has recognized submissions to their blockchain
in healthcare competition

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2016/08/29/onc-announces-blockchain-challenge-winners.html

John

On Aug 29, 2016 6:01 PM, "Eve Maler" <eve.maler at forgerock.com> wrote:

Based on our round-robin inputs, the group did reach consensus on a use
case universe, so to speak, which may address this question in part (as
recorded on our wiki
<http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Home>):

"[The DG] plans to deliver a report at the end of [the six months] that
offers recommendations and observations to Kantara regarding solving use
cases for empowering traditionally disempowered parties (such as
individuals) to "contract and transact" e.g. with parties that
traditionally hold greater power (such as companies and large countries),
given the new landscape of decentralization and distributed technologies
and techniques and their mixture with identity."

One good reason to open up decisions previously made for reconsideration
would be that we have new information on the table. One good reason to try
and keep the time-boxing is that this technology world and the insights
being gleaned about it (one could say the "hype cycle") are rapidly
maturing, so those with requirements and use cases will want to influence
the builders.

Why don't we take up all of these meta-questions in tomorrow's call and try
to drive towards "why we're here" once again, being *extremely concrete*?
In other words, please be prepared to argue for specific scope wording that
differs from (e.g., broadens or tightens) the statement above in whatever
dimensions if you think it's not suitable in its current form.


*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/> *London and Paris!*

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Thorsten H. Niebuhr [WedaCon GmbH] <
tniebuhr at wedacon.net> wrote:

> Which (for me) translates into the (open) question (and I really dont
> wanna be the advocatis diaboli):
>
> Should we split and discuss SmartContracts independently from BlockChain
> /DLT (here: in respect to identity management) ?
>
> SmartContracts are discussed and worked on already in the consensus field
> (esp. CommonAccord) with great results/findings.
>
> Thesis: SmartContracts are just a usecase for DLT/Blockchain (and I have
> used the order on purpose here)
>
>
> But its late for me, and I might be totally wrong...
>
>
> reg,
>
> T.
>
> On 30.08.2016 00:02, j stollman wrote:
>
> I agree with Colin and Andrew's sentiments about trying to achieve a
> consensus on what the DG report should look like and what we could do as a
> next step in a WG.  But I don't believe that there is a natural consensus
> on this broad topic at this point.  Like the blind men describing the
> elephant, we are looking at blockchain and smart contracts from multiple
> perspectives -- none of which are wrong.
>
> I personally sense that there is some high-level agreement to focus on a
> couple broad solution areas as targets for a report (e.g., healthcare
> research consents).  But I also sense that there is a lot of talking past
> each other when we start drilling down to the direction people want to go.
> Unlike other DGs, we have taken on two very broad topic areas in this DG
> (blockchain and smart contracts) just to try to get our heads wrapped
> around the subject.  I don't know that we have accomplished this basic
> goal.  We are still "storming" and nowhere near "norming".  This makes it
> hard to come to any kind of agreement.  And, perhaps forcing ourselves into
> a lukewarm consensus just to meet a self-imposed deadline will keep us from
> discovering some significant value added topics that would benefit from the
> combined wisdom of the highly intelligent participants in this group.
>
> Perhaps, rather than a single report, we made need to consider multiple
> reports and/or multiple targets for a new WG or set of WGs.  I don't claim
> that this is the answer.  I just don't sense that we are close enough to
> any consensus yet to create a report with significant value.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Jeff Stollman
> stollman.j at gmail.com
> +1 202.683.8699
>
>
> Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
> Science advances one funeral at a time.
>                                     Max Planck
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:18 PM, M AV <av_m at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ditto on the keep-it-simple sentiment – except that I wouldn’t
>> characterize it as “not beg[ing] the question of technology” so much as not
>> getting into the weeds with details, the distinction being that I do think
>> we need to keep cycling back to the basic question of what the smart
>> contract/authenticated ledger technology especially enables in the proo0sed
>> use cases, e.g. empowerment of smart contract parties, authenticated chain
>> of asset states, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> J  ann vroom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* dg-bsc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:
>> dg-bsc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *Eve Maler
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2016 12:08 PM
>> *To:* Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com>
>>
>> *Cc:* dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi folks-- Now that I'm back from my vacation with self-imposed lack of
>> connectivity...
>>
>>
>>
>> It's fine for us to get more experts at our table, but this should in no
>> way impede our development and completion of use cases. I do think we can
>> easily over-rotate on use case writing, and we probably are doing so. They
>> should be short and crisp, and -- most importantly from my perspective -- *should
>> not beg the question of technology* by including requirements for
>> technology in them. If there's a requirement for, say, not trusting a
>> central authority, say why plainly and move on. If it turns out that this
>> is in tension with a requirement for limiting access by some parties for
>> some purpose (e.g., the best way today for ensuring "permissioning" of some
>> portion of a solution stack is to use identity/access federation frameworks
>> with a TTP in them), so be it; we're here to describe the use cases and
>> then those tensions in the use-case technology/technique SWOTs, not write
>> specs.
>>
>>
>>
>> That said, we can be very dynamic in writing our materials given online
>> docs and hyperlinking and such, and thus we can get internal and external
>> review as we go along. So if we're disciplined, we don't have to
>> write-write-write now and then only get review in month 6.
>>
>>
>>
>> My preference would be for use cases to be relatively text-sparse and to
>> include use case diagrams as appropriate. Not sure how realistic this is,
>> though.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Eve Maler *ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging
>> Technology
>> Cell +1 425.345.6756 <%2B1%20425.345.6756> | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter:
>> @xmlgrrl
>> *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to
>> <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Andrew Hughes <
>> andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> John W. - that is one very good candidate - it would, of course, need
>> more detail at this stage to spur the need for a WG.
>>
>>
>>
>> One way to view a WG is through questions like:
>>
>> - Which technical or policy audience needs a consensus standard, guidance
>> or tool?
>>
>> - Is there a state of practice or new regulation/legislation that is
>> ready for compliance and conformance development and even certification?
>>
>> - Is there a consensus position or opinion that needs to be articulated
>> in order to rally the industry and inform a specific audience?
>>
>> - Is there a group of related activities or initiatives that would
>> benefit from an umbrella document to knit the parts together and bring
>> cohesion to the disparate work?
>>
>>
>>
>> The mission of a WG is to create useful artifacts for a well-scoped,
>> well-defined audience through consensus-based collaboration. This mission
>> is easy to execute when participants with a strong interest in the
>> outcome/output are engaged (otherwise WGs drift).
>>
>>
>>
>> andrew.
>>
>>
>> *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP
>> Independent Consultant
>> *In Turn Information Management Consulting*
>>
>> o  +1 650.209.7542 <%2B1%20650.209.7542>
>> m +1 250.888.9474 <%2B1%20250.888.9474>
>> 1249 Palmer Road,
>> Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
>> AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com
>> ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
>> *Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security *
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:03 AM, John Wunderlich <john at wunderlich.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Colin;
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the constraints/opportunities it occurs to me that the DG report
>> should seek to articulate the Terms of Reference for a Kantara WG whose
>> goal would be to define and work to create a Proof Of Concent instantiation
>> of a Blockchain and/or SmartContract ecosystem that will move the user
>> centred identity concept closer to fruition, if that makes sense?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> John Wunderlich
>> @PrivacyCDN
>>
>> Call: +1 (647) 669-4749 <%2B1%20%28647%29%20669-4749>
>> eMail: john at wunderlich.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29 August 2016 at 10:34, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks John M, John W, James, Patrick et al
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we are all in agreement we could do with more input from the
>> broader BC and SC communities.
>>
>> And of course that is most welcomed, moreso if they bring their own
>> communities with them and join Kantara which helps pay for the platform on
>> which the DG rests:-).
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm also sensitive to the LC Chair Andrew's motivation to bring DG
>> discussions to a conclusion at frequent intervals (typically 6 months) in
>> order to get onto the work of addressing the issues that the DG use cases
>> and deliberations raise.
>>
>>
>>
>> These two things are not mutually exclusive. We can have a WG working on
>> solutions arising from a DG output, while at the same time having a DG
>> continue to draw in more use cases and discussion. The Charters need to be
>> directed and focussed accordingly and the timelines clear.
>>
>>
>>
>> John W's estimates are about right. We started this DG in May, so we need
>> to have it concluded November latest. Take off a month of writing and there
>> is 2 months left.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is really tempting to slip the timeline to allow more discussion in a
>> DG, as a preface to WG work.
>>
>> But past experience has shown us that that often comes at the expense of
>> focussing the resulting WG on nailing the solutions to the problems raised,
>> to a logical formal end deliverable in a community-valuable timeframe.
>>
>> There is so much to do in this space.
>>
>> Biting it off in a continual process of digestible chunks is absolutely
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Colin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* John Moehrke <johnmoehrke at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* 29 August 2016 13:42
>> *To:* James Hazard
>> *Cc:* Colin Wallis; dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a potential new use of Blockchain and Smart-Contracts. I have
>> written it up using the template, but don't yet have rights on the Kantara
>> system. I have published what I have developed with a friend of mine
>> (Health Informaticist and Researcher) onto my Blog. I am happy to submit it
>> fully to the Kantara DG-BSC efforts if the community is interested.
>>
>>
>>
>> The use-case is Evidence Notebooks (aka Lab Notebooks, or Patent
>> Notebooks).
>>
>>
>>
>> https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/blockchain
>> -and-smart-contracts-applied.html
>>
>> Healthcare CyberPrivacy: Blockchain and Smart-Contracts applied to
>> Evidence Notebook
>> <https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/blockchain-and-smart-contracts-applied.html>
>>
>> healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> John Moehrke
>> Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy,
>> and Security
>> CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy
>> M +1 920-564-2067
>> JohnMoehrke at gmail.com
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke
>> https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com
>> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?")
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:26 AM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Colin,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it might be helpful to have wider representation of the
>> blockchain community on the thread.  I mention the DG-BSC when I am in
>> conversation with them.
>>
>>
>>
>> On deliverables, I think we have spent good time well on discussing what
>> blockchains and smart contracts are and aren't, and could do more on how
>> they fit into a broader picture of automation, institutions, privacy and
>> security.  (Elements of the blockchain community, IMHO, sometimes think
>> they don't need to think about institutions, since ridding the world of
>> institutions is the goal of decentralization.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest that we could:
>>
>>
>>
>> Describe a general "smart contract" paradigm on the lines of:
>>
>>
>>
>> i)   events - (Barclay's and R3's "parameters")
>>
>> ii)  text objects ("prose," actors, things, places, etc.)
>>
>> iii) Smart Contract Description Language
>>
>> iv) code
>>
>>
>>
>> We could describe the relationship between this "smart contract" record
>> of relationships and transactions, on the one hand, and various databases
>> on the other.
>>
>>
>>
>> We could describe some uses cases where blockchain databases were useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> This would not exclude developing use-case verticals.  The consent to use
>> of genetic information use case seems potent.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks All
>>
>> Interesting thoughts and discussion.
>>
>> Indeed we could invite some other folks not engaged here to add their use
>> cases.
>>
>> But it would need to be pretty soon.
>>
>> We are more than half way through the 6 month period for collecting use
>> cases, allowing some time for the report to be written up with
>> recommendations on what work we might take forward to a WG to deliver a
>> specific useful tangible output.
>>
>> There is plenty of talk in this domain. But Kantara value proposition
>> that it is about 'doing', and the community will be the better for a useful
>> deliverable as a result. Let's not divert from that goal.
>>
>> That said, there is nothing to stop another DG, or a re-charter of this
>> DG, working on a another suite of use cases perhaps for a particular
>> context.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Colin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* dg-bsc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org <
>> dg-bsc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Patrick Curry <
>> patrick.curry at bbfa.info>
>> *Sent:* 28 August 2016 22:15
>> *To:* James Hazard
>> *Cc:* dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
>>
>>
>>
>> The devil is in the detail and also in the minds of innovators and start
>> ups.
>>
>>
>>
>> Back end transactions of smart contracts differ from the smart contracts
>> in BCs with their transparency property.  My colleagues see a difference
>> and it is giving rise to new user cases.  One involves the ability of all
>> parties in a police incident to be able to validate that the legally
>> permitted individual policeman is assigned to a specific task for that
>> incident in real time based on his skills, training, authority etc.  The
>> rules are being executed in a distributed fashion with distributed inputs,
>> all assured.  This particular example is in the concept stage.  However,
>> there is another international logistic example. leveraging an existing
>> pilot, that is expected to move into implementation soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ll speak to Colin.  We could be inviting some of the more forward BC
>> companies to engage in the KI discussion.
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Patrick Curry
>> Director
>>
>> British Business Federation Authority - BBFA Ltd
>> M: +44 786 024 9074
>> T:   +44 1980 620606
>> patrick.curry at bbfa.info
>> www.bbfa.info – a not-for-profit, self-regulating body
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 Aug 2016, at 20:07, James Hazard <james.g.hazard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, IPFS is a very useful resource.
>>
>>
>>
>> The chain of consent to use of information seems to unify many use
>> cases.  A few links in the chain from prior threads in the discussion:
>>
>>
>>
>> Patient consent from our discussion earlier this week:
>>
>> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=/GH/Ka
>> ntaraInitiative/DG-BSC/Consent/Use1/05-AliceGrants.md
>>
>>
>>
>> Data transfer agreements on the EU "Model Clauses":
>>
>> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=Wx/eu/
>> europa/eur-lex/Privacy/ModelClauses/EN/Demo/0.md
>>
>> (Available in 20+ languages, about six of which are in the demo).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono at mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> With regards to legal contracts for data-sharing, this could be (should
>> be) a good use-case for BSC.
>>
>> /thomas/
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Jim Willeke [jim at willeke.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:56 AM
>> To: John Wunderlich
>> Cc: Thomas Hardjono; dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org
>> Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
>>
>> I agree with /thomas/. There is no reason smart contracts could not be
>> done via a protocol with the back-end system be unknown.
>>
>> IPFS could be used as an example.
>>
>> JLINC<http://www.jlinclabs.com/protocol/>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
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/20160829/0d3c8f5b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the DG-BSC mailing list