Re: [ontolog-forum] "Data/digital Object" Identities

[Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx>]

Online signature verification *is* verification of *the act*, rather than the mark left behind.

Offline verification is what looks at the resulting marks.

Simon

On Oct 23, 2014 12:59 PM, "William Frank" <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 23, 2014 11:47 AM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Industry is looking to add a 4th to this list: "Something you do". Basically, the act of playing a ... sequence of motions is used to create a profile of your responses that can be predictive.
>
> Isn't that an accurate description of signing your own name?

That has been studied extensively, you advanced search example (!

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Online++signature++verification

Actually, I understood Pat to be referencing the ACT of signing your name, which a different thing from the persistent artifact (a signature) that is the OUTCOME of that act.   And, this reseach is about the outcome, not the act.   Of course, there is a strong correlation, but not entire.  If we watched the signature being made, (when is the dot applied above the 'i'?)

etc.  then we would be seeing something you do.  

Similarly, in cryptography, the act of applying an algorithm is a different thing from the result, and, if I am not mistaken,  there cannot be a one-to-one correspondence between the two.  (I.e., many algorthims, maybe even an infinite number of them, will map a particular n to a particular m, or even to any finite set of pairs, m1,n1,  m2, n2, etc.)

This does discussion has wandered a bit far from the subject of data/information object identities. If people are still interested in that topic I have some experience in that area, and have some opinions on the usefulness of relative identity as a tool for analyzing models like FRBR, which I could write an email on.

Higher order logics are useful, with the predicates that must agree being treated as a set rather than the usual $ \forall \phi \in \Phi $. 

Removing members from the set of predicates yields different entities (or equivalence classes). These may represent useful abstractions, or at least raise questions about other abstractions.

Simon

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)