Venn and the art of data-sharing

I come to the VRM world from a tradition (if that’s the right word) of digital identity management. With so many organizational efforts swirling around trying to create identity layers, data portability, metasystems, and suchlike, I kept noticing that there was a common set of bedrock features involving human beings and the networked apps they use. And, yes…I saw it as a Venn diagram.

I’ve been trying this out on folks for a while now, and used it in a couple of recent talks, particularly my Gnomedex 8.0 one. Here’s my thinking behind it. (This is more than a straight Venn because of the metaphorical shadow thingie. Couldn’t resist! My web services Venn “cheated” too.)

Digital identity management is, at base, about identification so app usage can be correlated and audited, authorization to provide secure controlled access, and personalization, all counterbalanced by privacy. It has a strong individual (single-human-to-app) bent, though sometimes it involves Shibboleth-style scenarios where you mostly track anonymous group members rather than unique people.

Social networking is about building feelings of connectedness and offering the benefits of collaboration, such as crowdsourcing. Social apps focus on human-to-human relationships, but to provide infrastructure for this, they have to do plenty of the human-to-app variety. Social networking today stresses revelation of personal details (the OpenSocial best practices doc is one example) much more than it stresses privacy, though the latter is an increasing concern.

VRM partly involves what could be called restriction of data flow — undoing vendors’ grip on users’ info in a way that’s familiar to proponents of privacy-enhanced and user-controlled IdM. But other VRM scenarios involve enhancement of individuals’ opportunities to share personal information, for example by issuing a personal RFP to potential vendors. As Doc Searls has said, VRM is “personal first and social second”, so it seems to have a closer kinship with digital identity but could provide new social opportunities as well.

Each area has its unique features. But all share a common trait — differentiated app behavior depending on special aspects of you (whether this comes from attributes, claims, and transactional details in IdM; social graph data and user-generated content in social apps; or proactive requests and other personal data offered up in VRM). And to deliver on this promise they all share a common requirement — knowing more about you, with permission.

By contrast, where apps know about you through improper data gathering or aggregation, you get digital shadow effects — like direct marketing that is distinctly not permissioned or welcomed. Today, permissioning is still something of an art rather than a science, hence the title of this post.

We have a number of infrastructural options that more or less satisfy the requirements of the intersection, and later I hope to provide further thoughts on that. For now, I hope you’ll let me know what you think of this new instance of John Venn’s invention.

Tags: ,

5 Comments to “Venn and the art of data-sharing”

  1. [...] going to start referring to her as the Venn Queen. Eve Maler has done another Venn diagram, this time to show the relationship of whole areas of the “user-centric” sphere of [...]

  2. [...] become convinced that multi-sourced data access is a requirement for the core permissioned data sharing issue that’s common to identity, VRM, and social networking use [...]

  3. [...] need for permissioned data-sharing and relationship management doesn’t discriminate in favor of, or against, any type of entity; [...]

  4. [...] In questi mesi ho avuto l’onore e la grande opportunità di partecipare ad un gruppo di lavoro internazionale interno a Sun, coordinato dalla collega Eve Maler (Emerging Technologies Director at Sun Microsystems) con l’obiettivo di analizzare le implicazioni di questi scenari User-driven, rispetto alle tecnologie emergenti sul tema della condivisione dei dati (permissioned data-sharing). [...]

  5. [...] Robin Wilton’s post on Google Buzz hits the nail(s) right on the head(s). The benefits of social networking center on human-to-human connectedness and collaboration, but the entire “social networking” construct obscures the fact that it’s really human-to-application-to-human. In revealing information that its users never authorized nor expected to be revealed, Google has created digital shadow cruft. [...]