[Community] Fwd: Name Uniqueness Problem - Can OpenID solve it?

[Joaquin Miller]

A response to traffic on OpenID general list, where someone posed a 
problem and several folks send responses that focused on whether 
there are identifiers that identify more than one person.  Ben and 
Alexis said that is not what 'identifier' means.  I quote a tiny 
fragment of John's message at the beginning of mine.

>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:03:03 -0700
>To: OpenID general list <general at openid.net>
>From: Joaquin Miller <joaquin at netmesh.us>
>Subject: Name Uniqueness Problem - Can OpenID solve it?
>Bcc: OSIS <osis-general at netmesh.org>
>
>>There's a difference between an identifier, a unique identifier, and ...
>
>What Ben and Alexis wrote is correct.  In his message, John uses a 
>term that many folks use in our common parlance: 'unique 
>identifier'.  John explains several practical matters about the use 
>of names.  I don't question his analysis: he explains some important 
>matters and explains them clearly.
>
>But I sure don't like the term he chose to use.
>
>I feel strongly we should never use 'unique identifier', no matter 
>what meaning we intend.  This term only promotes misunderstanding.
>
>There is a well established technical meaning for 'identifier' and 
>we should stick to it.  This meaning not only suits our technical 
>requirements, it suits the shared understanding of the general population.
>
>12.1 Name: A term which, in a given naming context, refers to an entity.
>12.2 Identifier: An unambiguous name, in a given naming context.
>12.3 Name space: A set of terms usable as names.
>12.4 Naming context: A relation between a set of names and a set of 
>entities. The set of names belongs to a single name space.
>6.1 Entity: Any concrete or abstract thing of interest.
>
>      -- X.902 | International Standard 10746-2
>          http://www.joaquin.net/ODP/
>
>It means that there are no identifiers except in relation to a 
>naming context.  With respect to a given naming context, an 
>identifier is a name for a single entity.  If, in a given naming 
>context, a name refers to two or more entities, that name is not an identifier.
>
>Cordially, Joaquin
>
>
>I feel it would be a waste of our time, but if challenged I can 
>quickly demonstrate that there is no such thing as an identifier 
>that is unique.  My point about 'unique identifier' is that it 
>muddles the conversation and sows confusion.  But another point is 
>this: It's not useful to call an identifier that is not unique a 
>'unique identifier'.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/attachments/20060920/2f1a279e/attachment.html