Comments for itickr.com http://itickr.com Tracking Identity Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:06:28 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 Comment on MacBook Pro by Kizzy Chauvaux http://itickr.com/?p=99&cpage=1#comment-2741 Kizzy Chauvaux Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:06:28 +0000 http://itickr.com/?p=99#comment-2741 Alot of bloggers not too pleased with the new iPad.There was just 2 much hype regarding it and alot people got disapointed.Thing is, I for one see some of the awesome potential of this device. Third-party apps for making music, games, newsprints and magazines and FFS books, all sorts of awesome stuff, but IMHO they failed to sell it very well (excluding the books). It feels rather not finished Alot of bloggers not too pleased with the new iPad.There was just 2 much hype regarding it and alot people got disapointed.Thing is, I for one see some of the awesome potential of this device. Third-party apps for making music, games, newsprints and magazines and FFS books, all sorts of awesome stuff, but IMHO they failed to sell it very well (excluding the books). It feels rather not finished

]]> Comment on OAuth vs WS-Trust/WS* by dave http://itickr.com/?p=137&cpage=1#comment-2602 dave Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:25:22 +0000 http://itickr.com/?p=137#comment-2602 Very Nice Blog, Good work! <a href="http://www.soaguru.com" rel="nofollow">SOA Governance</a> Very Nice Blog, Good work!

SOA Governance

]]> Comment on MacBook Pro by Current iPhone News http://itickr.com/?p=99&cpage=1#comment-2601 Current iPhone News Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:15:26 +0000 http://itickr.com/?p=99#comment-2601 There's no chance that's right, right!? Macs never used to be quite like that. I am veteran enough to think back to the very first like that had input recognition There’s no chance that’s right, right!? Macs never used to be quite like that. I am veteran enough to think back to the very first like that had input recognition

]]> Comment on Random Password Statistics by Stanlee12 http://itickr.com/?p=148&cpage=1#comment-2551 Stanlee12 Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:08:10 +0000 http://itickr.com/?p=148#comment-2551 Loved the password suggestions by some managers. It gave me a few ideas to try. Thanks! Loved the password suggestions by some managers. It gave me a few ideas to try. Thanks!

]]> Comment on Open Identity for Open Government by Henrik Biering » USA’s regering bag privacy fokuseret OpenID http://itickr.com/?p=262&cpage=1#comment-2337 Henrik Biering » USA’s regering bag privacy fokuseret OpenID Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:14:27 +0000 http://itickr.com/?p=262#comment-2337 [...] Ashish Jain fra Paypal har lavet et blogindlæg med en række relevante links til OpenID for OpenGov [...] [...] Ashish Jain fra Paypal har lavet et blogindlæg med en række relevante links til OpenID for OpenGov [...]

]]> Comment on Open Identity for Open Government by Pushing String » The Zen of Venn http://itickr.com/?p=262&cpage=1#comment-2334 Pushing String » The Zen of Venn Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:16:50 +0000 http://itickr.com/?p=262#comment-2334 [...] with the new U.S. federal government effort around Open Identity Solutions for Open Government (and PayPal’s involvement in same), I thought maybe I could do a better job of capturing the main strengths OpenID, InfoCard, [...] [...] with the new U.S. federal government effort around Open Identity Solutions for Open Government (and PayPal’s involvement in same), I thought maybe I could do a better job of capturing the main strengths OpenID, InfoCard, [...]

]]> Comment on Three days more / Interop Zen by itickr.com » Open Identity for Open Government http://itickr.com/?p=90&cpage=1#comment-2332 itickr.com » Open Identity for Open Government Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:03:24 +0000 http://itickr.com/?p=90#comment-2332 [...] consider this as another forcing function that provides an opportunity for several providers to work together. There is no dearth of [...] [...] consider this as another forcing function that provides an opportunity for several providers to work together. There is no dearth of [...]

]]> Comment on Off topic – Social media for a social cause by Bob Dobbs http://itickr.com/?p=256&cpage=1#comment-2262 Bob Dobbs Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:25:51 +0000 http://itickr.com/?p=256#comment-2262 have alook at this - part of the tappening project - http://www.startalie.com/add1.php have alook at this – part of the tappening project – http://www.startalie.com/add1.php

]]> Comment on Name “the thing” by Charles Andres http://itickr.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2242 Charles Andres Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:01:49 +0000 http://itickr.com/?p=230#comment-2242 Too bad the world is not that simple. There were branding people in the discussions from the start. Some of the terms are trademarks, others are owned by entities that want to make the term mean _THEIR_ version, others are OK for slang, but not OK for an official name, others are too long to be continuously pronounced. Still others connote a type of information card that are different from other types. I listed the basic naming conventions in a popup on the front page of the ICF website on Day 1 (6/25/08). Information Card: official name; covers all card types. InfoCard and i-card: acceptable slang (at least it was the first 90 days). Self-issued card: one you make yourself with self-asserted claims. Managed card: card managed by an identity provider. CardSpace: the name of Microsoft's Identity Selector. The other terms have no official bearing, but [r]-card where [r] is some letter connoting a particular kind of card with different abilities, may likely emerge, as there will be cards with unique attributes shared within a subclass of cards. As with most metasystems, terms like IdP or RP are chosen because they describe a concept sufficiently general to cover a class of things. As with most brands, a specific instance of a thing (i.e. a commercial product from Company X.com) will have a unique name. And with anything as generally applicable as an Identity metasystem, there are bound to be: (a) multiple terms for the same thing. (b) terms that are meaningless outside the context of the implementors. (c) brand names (d) new categories of things -- think Gartner Magic Quadrant instance x -- Invent x and you invent a new market. +1 Ashish -- ICF should try again to reign this in. A.I. Drummond. Too bad the world is not that simple. There were branding people in the discussions from the start. Some of the terms are trademarks, others are owned by entities that want to make the term mean _THEIR_ version, others are OK for slang, but not OK for an official name, others are too long to be continuously pronounced. Still others connote a type of information card that are different from other types. I listed the basic naming conventions in a popup on the front page of the ICF website on Day 1 (6/25/08).

Information Card: official name; covers all card types.

InfoCard and i-card: acceptable slang (at least it was the first 90 days).

Self-issued card: one you make yourself with self-asserted claims.

Managed card: card managed by an identity provider.

CardSpace: the name of Microsoft’s Identity Selector.

The other terms have no official bearing, but [r]-card where [r] is some letter connoting a particular kind of card with different abilities, may likely emerge, as there will be cards with unique attributes shared within a subclass of cards.

As with most metasystems, terms like IdP or RP are chosen because they describe a concept sufficiently general to cover a class of things.

As with most brands, a specific instance of a thing (i.e. a commercial product from Company X.com) will have a unique name.

And with anything as generally applicable as an Identity metasystem, there are bound to be:
(a) multiple terms for the same thing.
(b) terms that are meaningless outside the context of the implementors.
(c) brand names
(d) new categories of things — think Gartner Magic Quadrant instance x — Invent x and you invent a new market.

+1 Ashish — ICF should try again to reign this in. A.I. Drummond.

]]> Comment on Name “the thing” by Charles Andres http://itickr.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2241 Charles Andres Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:55:18 +0000 http://itickr.com/?p=230#comment-2241 Too bad the world is not that simple. There were branding people in the discussions from the start. Some of the terms are trademarks, others are owned by entities that want to make the term mean _THEIR_ version, others are OK for slang, but not OK for an official name, others are too long to be continuously pronounced. Still others connote a type of information card that are different from other types. I listed the basic naming conventions in a popup on the front page of the ICF website on Day 1 (6/25/08). Information Card: official name; covers all card types. InfoCard and i-card: acceptable slang (at least it was the first 90 days). Self-issued card: one you make yourself with self-asserted claims. Managed card: card managed by an identity provider. CardSpace: the name of Microsoft's Identity Selector. The other terms have no official bearing, but [r]-card where [r] is some letter connoting a particular kind of card with different abilities, may likely emerge, as there will be cards with unique attributes shared within a subclass of cards. As with most metasystems, terms like IdP or RP are chosen because they describe a concept sufficiently general to cover a class of things. As with most brands, a specific instance of a thing (i.e. a commercial product from Company X.com) will have a unique name. And with anything as generally applicable as an Identity metasystem, there are bound to be: (a) multiple terms for the same thing. (b) terms that are meaningless outside the context of the implementors. (c) brand names (d) new categories of things (think Gartner Magic Quadrant instance x -- Invent x and you invent a new market. Speaking of official bearing, I do not have one, but I was present at the creation, and tried to reign this problem in at the beginning. Too bad the world is not that simple. There were branding people in the discussions from the start. Some of the terms are trademarks, others are owned by entities that want to make the term mean _THEIR_ version, others are OK for slang, but not OK for an official name, others are too long to be continuously pronounced. Still others connote a type of information card that are different from other types. I listed the basic naming conventions in a popup on the front page of the ICF website on Day 1 (6/25/08).

Information Card: official name; covers all card types.

InfoCard and i-card: acceptable slang (at least it was the first 90 days).

Self-issued card: one you make yourself with self-asserted claims.

Managed card: card managed by an identity provider.

CardSpace: the name of Microsoft’s Identity Selector.

The other terms have no official bearing, but [r]-card where [r] is some letter connoting a particular kind of card with different abilities, may likely emerge, as there will be cards with unique attributes shared within a subclass of cards.

As with most metasystems, terms like IdP or RP are chosen because they describe a concept sufficiently general to cover a class of things.

As with most brands, a specific instance of a thing (i.e. a commercial product from Company X.com) will have a unique name.

And with anything as generally applicable as an Identity metasystem, there are bound to be:
(a) multiple terms for the same thing.
(b) terms that are meaningless outside the context of the implementors.
(c) brand names
(d) new categories of things (think Gartner Magic Quadrant instance x — Invent x and you invent a new market.

Speaking of official bearing, I do not have one, but I was present at the creation, and tried to reign this problem in at the beginning.

]]>