Comments on: Approaches to fluid identity: Identifier Assertion Hubs http://blog.linkaffiliates.net.au/2009/10/23/approaches-to-fluid-identity-identifier-assertion-hubs/ Link Affiliates Blog Wed, 18 Aug 2010 02:02:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Nick Nicholas http://blog.linkaffiliates.net.au/2009/10/23/approaches-to-fluid-identity-identifier-assertion-hubs/#comment-134 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:13:21 +0000 http://blog.linkaffiliates.net.au/?p=251#comment-134 The ideas are consistent with each other when you put it like that, which is very useful, but I’m not sure they were originally conceived to be—the locus of the assertion is different (local vs regional). If it helps realise the agenda, all the better; I don’t know whether that’s the light it’s being looked at by ANDS.

]]> By: Peter Sefton http://blog.linkaffiliates.net.au/2009/10/23/approaches-to-fluid-identity-identifier-assertion-hubs/#comment-133 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:17:57 +0000 http://blog.linkaffiliates.net.au/?p=251#comment-133 I think that NicNames actually aims to do some of what you are describing here with the UKOLN/DRIVER approach. It creates an ID for its own use but then has statements to assert equivalence with other IDs. These could be exposed as RDF just as the national services will be doing and there has been some talk of NicNames instances feeding this data to the National Library here in Australia.

Isn’t NicNames a bit of infrastructure to implement the UKOLN/DRIVER approach? Or am I missing something?

]]>