Comments on: The Identity Metasystem and its Identity Selectors http://www.identityblog.com/?p=1014 Digital Identity And Our Future Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:12:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Craig Wittenberg http://www.identityblog.com/?p=1014#comment-6513 Craig Wittenberg Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:20:17 +0000 http://www.identityblog.com/?p=1014#comment-6513 It is important for the mission of the TC to match its name. Another way to align the two is to change the mission to be about interoperabiltiy of the components of the whole Identity Metasystem (instead of just about inforomation card). Thoughts? It is important for the mission of the TC to match its name. Another way to align the two is to change the mission to be about interoperabiltiy of the components of the whole Identity Metasystem (instead of just about inforomation card).

Thoughts?

]]> By: Marc Goodner http://www.identityblog.com/?p=1014#comment-6512 Marc Goodner Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:03:34 +0000 http://www.identityblog.com/?p=1014#comment-6512 Hi Kim, Drummond brought this to the attention of the IMI TC today and its being actively discussed. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/imi/200810/msg00002.html And if I can fill in the clipped last sentance of your post, yeah I wish we had heard this earlier. Naming is hard. It would be a shame if people felt excluded over the name of the TC. It was never meant to do that. I saw a post from Mike talking about how we simply landed there on the "good enough" basis. That really is all there was too it. It was never meant to slight anyone or try to "claim" the metasystem. Naming is hard enough that we spent half an hour on whether or not the Selector spec was really a "profile" or not. I think we were all sorely tempted to take the suggestion to name the output TC spec "Mike and Mike's Identity Spec" after our editors. :-) As co-chair of the group I don't want to come down with a strong opinion about what to do here. I do want to help facilitate the TC to do the right thing. After talking witht the OASIS staff we can change the name if that's what the TC wants to do. I see your suggestion in the post above and will make sure that is on the TC's list of options. If anyone else has options they want considered please join the TC or use the public comment list to let us here them. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=imi Yes, I'm sure comments made directly to the current participants or in other identity saloons where we hang out will also be put on the table. Hi Kim, Drummond brought this to the attention of the IMI TC today and its being actively discussed.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/imi/200810/msg00002.html

And if I can fill in the clipped last sentance of your post, yeah I wish we had heard this earlier.

Naming is hard. It would be a shame if people felt excluded over the name of the TC. It was never meant to do that. I saw a post from Mike talking about how we simply landed there on the “good enough” basis. That really is all there was too it. It was never meant to slight anyone or try to “claim” the metasystem. Naming is hard enough that we spent half an hour on whether or not the Selector spec was really a “profile” or not. I think we were all sorely tempted to take the suggestion to name the output TC spec “Mike and Mike’s Identity Spec” after our editors. :-)

As co-chair of the group I don’t want to come down with a strong opinion about what to do here. I do want to help facilitate the TC to do the right thing. After talking witht the OASIS staff we can change the name if that’s what the TC wants to do. I see your suggestion in the post above and will make sure that is on the TC’s list of options. If anyone else has options they want considered please join the TC or use the public comment list to let us here them.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=imi

Yes, I’m sure comments made directly to the current participants or in other identity saloons where we hang out will also be put on the table.

]]>