Re: [GNAP] Terminology PR

I don't think I spoke about subject data. I did speak about subject, as an
alternative to using either person/org/device.

We also already have subject information. Which is just really defined as a
statement about the subject. Is that what you call subject data here?

Le mer. 6 janv. 2021 à 23:16, Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com> a
écrit :

> you yourself brought up the problem. We do not know that the term "subject
> data" refers to.  My suggestion is to make subject plural.
> Peace ..tom
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:14 PM Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Adrian, welcome, always happy to see new people coming in.
>>
>> Tom, I agree this is a possibility but do we need that in the definition
>> itself (for a somewhat specific use case)? I don't see any loss of
>> generality in the current proposal.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:08 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> you miss the point.  There can be more than one subject and more that
>>> one collection of subject data.
>>> Peace ..tom
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:52 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm new to the GNAP list so please forgive me as I get up to speed.
>>>>
>>>> RO is a role and the 'subject' of a piece of data is not. I don't see
>>>> any problem in keeping this distinction straight throughout the spec.
>>>>
>>>> - Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 4:27 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Right - the correct term should be *subjects' information* as there
>>>>> are potentially two subjects, the RO and the "end-user" (really terribly
>>>>> confusing name). If you consider the case where the end-user is the parent
>>>>> of a child, or of their spouse, both subjects will be asked to supply
>>>>> information in order to be authenticated.
>>>>> Peace ..tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 5:20 AM Fabien Imbault <
>>>>> fabien.imbault@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The original requirement for "subject" comes from the reference to
>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-06
>>>>>> (used in the main text). The objective was to try to avoid various terms
>>>>>> which are synonyms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right, it's close to a legal entity, except from the fact that
>>>>>> it is defined more broadly (person, organization or device), which is
>>>>>> something we can encounter for the RO for instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance we had previous discussions where the RO was defined as
>>>>>> :
>>>>>> "personal or organizational entity"
>>>>>> which I replaced in the latest draft by
>>>>>> "subject entity" (since it is defined)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For "Subject Information", the question whether this refers to the
>>>>>> end-user or the RO is currently left open.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Fabien
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:38 PM Mark Lizar <mark@openconsent.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Fabien,  et al,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great start!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you clarify the use and application of the term subject, as
>>>>>>> the term is used in some legal standards for semantics and I wonder if this
>>>>>>> is related to the legal semantic attribution of data subject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the glossary,  it also seems the Subject Entity is referring to
>>>>>>> what is commonly know as legal entity.   And the term subject can refer to
>>>>>>> a few things at this technical level.— e.g.  a semantic term referencing in
>>>>>>> general the *topic* of the resource  or is it the* legal entity
>>>>>>> / credential *that corresponds to the accountable controller of a
>>>>>>> resource ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5 Jan 2021, at 08:04, Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wish you all a happy new year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just created a PR (
>>>>>>> https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/pull/155) that
>>>>>>> takes into account the various feedbacks. The automatic build process is
>>>>>>> not working, but you can see the diffs and build the html locally if you
>>>>>>> prefer. The definitions have also been updated on the wiki (
>>>>>>> https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/wiki/Terminology)
>>>>>>> if you prefer to check there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Feedbacks welcome before we move to pending merge later on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Fabien
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> TXAuth mailing list
>>>>>>> TXAuth@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> TXAuth mailing list
>>>>>> TXAuth@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> TXAuth mailing list
>>>>> TXAuth@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>>>
>>>>