[WG-UMA] Lexicon madness

Eve Maler eve at xmlgrrl.com
Fri Feb 19 10:23:21 EST 2010


Thanks for these comments!  Indeed, my addition of this new legalese was an experiment, and I wasn't crazy about having to add parallel legal terms to the already fairly generic claim/claim request terms we had (not previously defined in the lexicon) but I still suspect they're necessary. And looking at the law.com legal dictionary (to which I've resorted a lot lately), "claim" seems to have been, uh, claimed for totally different uses, so I don't think I can make it do double duty.

I'm actually using "claim" in its name/value pair sense, though you're right, that's not reflected directly in the definition; I can try incorporating the ID Commons wiki approach.  (Note that our protocol involves messages containing things like an authorization state of "claims-required", and you'll immediately recognize the sample claims Paul has provided in email threads of yore.) What appears in my definition now is really just a description of a claim's role in the UMA protocol rather than a proper definition.

Your suggestion about examples is excellent.  I'd been trying to keep the definitions "bare" so that we could test for their suitability to be included in the actual protocol spec -- e.g., I don't think it would be wise to include the diagrams in the spec -- but examples would obviously help, and it's possible they'd also make it to the spec (only marked as non-normative).

	Eve

On 19 Feb 2010, at 6:36 AM, Paul Trevithick wrote:

> Eve,
> 
> This draft states:
> 
> 1. A claim is the technical expression in the UMA protocol of a representation...
> 2. A representation is a statement of an affirmative or promissory nature that a requesting party makes...
> 
> Comments about claim:
> 
> Does UMA really need claim? According to #1: a claim is an expression of a representation. Since everything in digital systems is an expression of something, perhaps we could just use the word representation where you would have used the word claim and just assume that we're really talking about a technical/digital expression. In other words do we need the extra level of abstraction?
> Of course UMA is free to define claim as it wishes. But there are issues. In the past 5 years it has been used by many in the identity community (e.g. [1] and from Kim's original Laws of Identity work) to just mean a simple attribute/value assertion like eye-color = "green", or age-over-18 = true, etc. [There was discussion during the development of the idcommons lexicon (on the so-called identity gang list) about whether we needed the term claim (because we already had from SAML Assertions and AttributeStatements, etc.).] To me UMA's use of the word seems to diverge from tradition, and this introduces confusion.
> 
> I think that adding some examples to certain terms (especially the representation term) might make the lexicon easier to understand. We found e.g. again in [1] that adding examples helped.
> 
> --Paul
> 
> [1] http://wiki.idcommons.net/Claim
> 
> 
> On Feb 19, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Eve Maler wrote:
> 
>> The set of terms is getting fairly large and hairy, but I think if we have the diagrams available to help explain and give context, it shouldn't be too bad to provide the definitions in the actual spec.
>> 
>> I came across some legalese that seemed to fit our requirements for staying out of "contractual" language, while still being actionable and (hopefully) enforceable in the legal world.  So now I talk about access authorization terms and representations (where the latter can be affirmative vs. promissory, that is, statements of fact or promises).  I also define policy.
>> 
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Lexicon
>> 
>> (And note that I changed the custodial terms a bit to reflect our discussion too.)
>> 
>> Comments??
>> 
>> 	Eve
>> 
>> Eve Maler
>> eve at xmlgrrl.com
>> http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> WG-UMA mailing list
>> WG-UMA at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
> 


Eve Maler
eve at xmlgrrl.com
http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-uma/attachments/20100219/9dc2a3ab/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the WG-UMA mailing list