Date

May 28, 2015

Attendees

Mark Lizar (Unlicensed)
Sarah
Maciej
Justin
Mary

Agenda

Updates: UMA
Review fields,
get scenario’s structured
run a scenario
make a scenario template
discuss jurisdiction.

Discussion

Updates: UMA
1. Is UMA a bob or Alice facing consent receipt
  1. its a way to memorialize the data sharing
  2. Sub Transactions - bob-granting access to Alice - where bob is the subject
  3. What are the binding obligations between Bob and Alice
  4. Service Provider & Alice Resource server are the same thing.
    1. there are 6 parities the client, the resource server, alice and bob,
Review fields,
1. added and fixed some fields
  1. field 1 - data subject service defined field
  2. added PII collection field
  3. created field for UMA use case
2. Note:
  1. Justin has data model centric perspective, MVCR is legal, static for a specific use case, which has some social significance and required for proof of concept, we have added a MVCR required field to the data model as this is primary use case. Used to develop the more advanced data model
get scenario’s structured
1. created a plan for this.
run a scenario
1. did not get this far
make a scenario template
discuss jurisdiction.
1. added a field 0 for jurisdiction capture - this is a hold space for the issue that is Jurisdiction to be raised

The MVCR: General for use case - that's static - Column should then be split into many columns to be able to generate a wholistic date model for consent/authoristions. personal, biz, legal, technical, aggregate, Alice copy, bob copy, - in different contexts different parties get receipts with different payloads (or diff version of the receipts)

Actions

move this to spreadsheet for next week
move this to a template for running scenarios in two weeks
flush out point form some of the use cases and functionality
The chain of obligations: Flush out the UMA binding obligations use case a bit more. with UMA fields (from notes above)

Browser not supported