[WG-InfoSharing] MVCR Terminology: Grantee and Grantor -

Mark Lizar - OCG m.lizar at openconsentgroup.com
Sun Mar 27 14:49:06 CDT 2016


Hi Sal, 

Thanks for the sage advice and the timely (easter) input.  It does make sense to look around and see if we can have a common use of terms for trusted services in Kantara.  


Mark 

> On 27 Mar 2016, at 17:18, Salvatore D'Agostino <sal at idmachines.com> wrote:
> 
> Might want to check with the legal group working with UMA to see if there is some consensus there and then perhaps consistency of terms across the groups.
>  
> From: wg-infosharing-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:wg-infosharing-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Mark Lizar - OCG
> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 6:02 AM
> To: Iain Henderson
> Cc: wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org
> Subject: Re: [WG-InfoSharing] MVCR Terminology: Grantee and Grantor -
>  
> Most likely ,  would, be. I will try them out and see. 
>  
> Thx
>  
> - Mark 
>  
>> On 27 Mar 2016, at 10:07, Iain Henderson <iainhenderson at mac.com <mailto:iainhenderson at mac.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Would consenter and consentee be better?
>>  
>> I think we should stick to the base nouns and verbs if we can.
>>  
>> Iain
>>  
>>> On 27 Mar 2016, at 07:19, Mark Lizar - OCG <m.lizar at openconsentgroup.com <mailto:m.lizar at openconsentgroup.com>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Hi All, 
>>>  
>>> - Happy Chocolate (easter) Day — 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> I have noticed that lots of the language in the specification is a bit awkward in that we have been trying to use the ISO 29100 terminology framework of a consent centric specification.  Even though the ISO privacy framework is a very helpful base for terms and concepts it is not consent centric and really available as terms people can grasp and use. 
>>>  
>>> In this regard, I have been playing with the terms Grantee and Grantor as operational terms to describe Alice and Bob’s role in the consent . 
>>>  
>>> Grantee - being the entity provisioning (or giving) consent - Grantor being the entity that is harvesting the consent ( or taking)  consent. I like grantee, as it embodies a person and has an inherent rights to manage the use of consent post provision. 
>>>  
>>> Would there being objection to adding these two terms to the spec and mapping:
>>> 1. grantee to PI subject, Data subject,
>>> 2. grantor to PI Controller, Data Controller 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>  
>>> Mark
>>>  
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
>>> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org>
>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing <http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing>
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
>> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org>
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing <http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20160327/03c3546b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3591 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20160327/03c3546b/attachment.p7s>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list