* Different definitions of context
Last week’s newsletter about context (“Explaining the importance of context in ID mgmt.”) elicited responses from a number of readers. A few readers – especially those who disagreed – appear to have a different definition of context. That’s not really surprising, as some people whose job is designing identity architectures and services also appear to have a different definition than mine. I’d like to use an example that one reader submitted (Thanks, Paul) to try to further explain this. The example:
“I walk into a book store for the first time, and look for a book to purchase. To the owner, my identity is simply ‘a customer.’
I select and bring a book to the counter. My identity is now modified to ‘a customer making a purchase.’ This gains me closer, and likely friendlier attention from the owner.
If I make my purchase using coin of the realm, my identity remains as ‘a customer making a purchase.’ I do not have an absolute identity, just one that categorizes me as completing a transaction, a member of a group identity.
If I purchase using my credit card, the situation changes. A degree of trust, beyond that needed of a paying customer, must be determined. The card is validated, and possibly additional identity documents requested to verify that I am the authorized holder of the credit card. After that verification has satisfied the shop owner, the credit card is used to complete the transaction.
After purchasing the book, and walking out of the shop, my identity, unless something occurred that caused a reason for remembering me, my identity changes again to a group identity – a satisfied customer who may return, and who purchased a book.”
The problem, as I see it, is that the “identity” hasn’t changed at all. The richness of the description has changed, but the person who enters the bookstore as “a customer” is still “a customer” when they leave. But when they leave, a number of different attributes have been added to the identity: a buyer, perhaps a credit-card buyer. The venue (the bookstore) also knows the book(s) the customer bought and can tie them to inventory or even to that particular customer for future reference.
Now Paul, my reader, does go on to explain: “The context – what we are trying to do, how, when and where we are doing it, all serve to modify our ‘identity.’ We present a different ‘persona,’ or subset of our core identity, for each activity we do in life.” That’s closer to my thinking, but the customer in the example is still a customer in a different venue – grocery store, auto dealership, ticket agency, etc. “Customer” or “buyer,” then, is simply just an attribute of this identity.
But suppose that this customer uses this bookstore to purchase leisure reading material as well as work-related texts. Let’s call the customer “Bob.” Bob is the universal identity. “Work Bob” and “Leisure Bob” are differing personas of Bob. When Bob buys a book, the venue of the transaction is the bookstore. But both Work Bob and Leisure Bob buy books at that venue. So the context in which the identity Bob exists needs to include both the current persona as well as the current venue. That is, the context is Work Bob at Border Books. But “Bob,” the identity, hasn’t changed at all.
