[WG-P3] [WG-IDAssurance] What to call a Relying Party in terms of aTrust Framework
mark at smartspecies.com
Thu Mar 10 13:28:57 EST 2011
Yes, I see the limits of the term principle..
Personally, I like Master Controller, but it suffers from the same
sort of limitations. I think in a privacy perspective Master
Controller may be incredibly useful as a technical term but that is
just my opinion.
In reality even data subject has semantical issues as a term and maybe
even a blurring of terminological meaning at an attribute level.
The significant difference is that Data Subject, Data Controller, and
Data Processor are entrenched legally and therefore have some
Either way, it seems, terms need to find a way to be mapped by
something like an agreed standard.
On 10 Mar 2011, at 17:19, John Bradley wrote:
> Principal is used in the protocol domain to refer to entity that the
> assertion is about.
> In many cases it is the same as Data Subject but as assertions can
> be used for many things that is not always true.
> John B.
> On 2011-03-10, at 11:41 AM, Rainer Hörbe wrote:
>> Am 10.03.2011 um 12:26 schrieb Mark Lizar:
>>> In Data Protection, there are Roles: Controller, Processor and
>> I am only familiar with the terminology from the European DPD:
>> Controller, Processor, Requester and Data subject. In which domain
>> is Principle defined, and how does it map?
>> - Rainer
>> WG-P3 mailing list
>> WG-P3 at kantarainitiative.org
More information about the WG-P3