On Oct 22, 2014, at 8:47 AM, William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: (01)
> Cyber Identity has been at the heart of my job for the last three years, and
>identity an interest ever since I wrote my bachelor's thesis on Leibniz and
>Master's thesis on Frege.
>
> I agree with you, entirely Hans, and would say that implicit in your
>language is the essence of the problem: 'identity' is a kind of a very ghostly
>abstraction without much mooring. Identity is surely not an attribute of a
>thing. What HAS a mooring is the ACT of identification As you put it Hans,
>"assigning an identity." The act of identification is, as you say, a social
>act, and is of course context dependent.
>
> Also, I agree that identification in cyberspace is what creates the the acute
>need for better understanding of identifications.
> But, it is not an entirely new problem, applications and deeper dives into
>what is already known might suffice.
>
> For example, Gary's questions: Is a data object in one format the same as a
>data object in a different format or a different one? The bit streams can
>change but the original identity might be considered the same." This applies
>to *all* human artifacts. When is Moby Dick the 'same' book? (02)
It applies to everything, natural or artificial. When is Iceland the same
island? How many lakes are there in Norway? It is endemic in the way we use
language (and probably in how we think about the world.) (03)
> However, a new huge confusion has arisen, the conflating of identifiers
>with identities. (04)
This is also an old problem, but I agree it is a confusion. It is a beguilingly
natural confusion, since the identifier does define *some* identity, but it may
not be the identity that readers have in mind (and that software built by users
implicitly presumes). (05)
> As Gary says, 'seems like a large claim." Worse than large, if people think
>that computers can provide mathematical certainly about things in the real
>world, the assurance that, in effect, a passport MUST be a correct
>indentifier, then we are another step along the way to handing over autocratic
>authority to the machines. Instead of 'we do not have a record of your
>payment'. we go do 'you did not make the payment.' (06)
My credit standing was permanently damaged by the extended fallout from a
mistyped letter in an address line (W instead of E). Long story, involving
identity errors of several kinds. (07)
> I am not sure how Jack's point about URIs relates, except that surely, 'to be
>is to be a URI" is another weird way the world might be going. For cyber
>thiings and their identifying characteristics, I would agree with you, Jack.
>But, I also think that identification of *physical* objects might never or not
>for a long time be replicatable with information about the object that can be
>captured on a computer. (08)
In some ways the digital/semantic technologies are making this worse.
Ontologies impose artificial identity conditions of their own, which can clash
both with other ontologies and with human intuitions. For example, the widely
popular provenance ontology http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/ views every
change as producing a new entity, so changing a tire on a car gives you a new
car. In contrast, the BFO basic ontology (http://www.ifomis.org/bfo/), used in
hundreds of bioinformatics applications, enforces a sharp, rigid distinction
between continuants and occurrents (roughly, objects and processes) with
completely different identity conditions across time. On the other hand, the
'oil and gas' (now generalized) ontology ISO 15926, widely used in industry,
treats everything as what BFO would call an occcurrent. All of these are
different and mutually incompatible basic assumptions about identity, but
likely would not even be actively considered by human users (except some
philosophers, maybe.) (09)
Pat Hayes (010)
>
> Wm
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jack Park <jackpark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've been importing ontologies into a topic map of late. It's rather
>surprising how many URIs have been assigned to the concept with the label
>"Person".
>
> I think it is correct to argue that there are many different ways in which
>some entity is identified by different individuals and communities, so it
>would seem that any "Architecture" which grows up around digital objects --
>which, by many lights, are proxies for subjects one way or another-- should be
>capable of capturing all knowable ways to identify that object, regardless of
>the database identifier assigned to it locally.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Hans Polzer <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gary,
>
>
>
> I tend to agree with your musings. The issue of identity (of whatever entity)
>is certainly one that the network revolution has brought to increased
>importance, if for no other reason than that it exposes the identities that
>anyone assigns to an entity/object, be it digital or “real world” to those who
>may assign a different identity to that same entity/object, however “sameness”
>might be defined. The NCOIC Net Centric Principles grappled with this issue by
>means of a principle called “Entity Primacy”, which basically states that
>whatever identity you might assign to an entity/object, it has other
>identities in other, usually collective, frames of reference. Deal with that,
>as opposed to assuming that the identity you assigned has primacy. Usually
>that would mean recognizing that the entity/object has other identities in
>other frames of reference, and one should be prepared to map the locally
>assigned identity to one or more other identities in other frames of
>reference, presumably those used by actors with whom one might want to
>exchange information about said entity/object.
>
>
>
> Of course, one could argue that any entity/object has some “natural” or
>“inherent” identity, such as the PID referenced below, UUID’s (Universal
>Unique Identifiers), or a person’s DNA, or perhaps more pragmatically, the VIN
>of an automobile. But even these assume a context of some, usually implicit,
>scope and an associated frame of reference. In other words, such an identity
>is inherently one of the collective within which the entity/object is being
>identified. Entity Primacy therefore points out that no collective context has
>a priori primacy for assigning identities to entities/objects. One needs to
>specify which collective context a particular identity for an entity/object is
>based on/derived from. And yes, this is recursive, since such collective
>contexts for assigning identities will themselves have identities in,
>presumably, larger contexts.
>
>
>
> Humans just tend to glom onto some collective context (such as DNS) and
>assume that everyone else will simply use that collective context for
>identifying entities, forgetting that not everything uses DNS, even in the
>networking domain. PIDs would certainly help things – but they are not
>universal and they likely assume some representational context dimensions, as
>you surmise in your email. That’s OK as long as one is explicit about what
>those are and understand the scope limitations that they imply when
>interacting with others who might not share those assumptions.
>
>
>
> Hans
>
>
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Berg-Cross
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:39 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] "Data/digital Object" Identities
>
>
>
> There is a bit of a movement to discuss digital data in terms of Digital
>Objects and an "Architecture." One rationale for this seems to be to provide
>an easier mechanism for the "creation of, and access to, digital objects as
>discrete data structures with unique, resolvable identifiers" - From a CNRI’s
>Press Release.
>
> It is further argued that such Digital Objects with a persistent ID (PID)
>will "provide a foundation for representing and interacting with information
>on the Internet."
>
> Seems like a large claim and I wonder what this community thinks of this
>idea. After all Identity is quite a semantic issue and intuitions about
>identities for digital objects might cause some problems. They seem quite
>mutable and we'd need to distinguish the ID for the raw data from each
>processing version of it. Is a data object in one format the same as a data
>object in a different format or a different one? The bit streams can change
>but the original identity might be considered the same.
>
>
>
>
> Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
>
> gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
>
> NSF INTEROP Project
>
> http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816
>
> SOCoP Executive Secretary
>
> Independent Consultant
>
> Potomac, MD
>
> 240-426-0770
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (011)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (013)
|