For a complete list of the 20+ technology adoption models, checkout: Technology Adoption Models: A Comprehensive Guide.
Monthly Archives: February 2021
Click here to download this Parallelspace Corporation Technical Note: PSN TN0028: SPS2003 XML Import-Export “Operation” Attribute
The technical note proposes the addition of an operation attribute to the XML emitted for each exported item by the SPS2003 Upgrade.exe tool. The schema for the operation attribute would include the following operations:
|operation Attribute Values||Description||Pre-delete Existing Item||Create New Item|
|operation=”delete”||Delete deletes an existing item imported into SPS2003 during a previous execution of the Import tool; or fails if the item doesn’t exist.||No||No|
|operation=”remove”||Delete deletes an existing item imported into SPS2003 during a previous execution of the Import tool, if it exists.||No||No|
|operation=”create”||Create creates a new instance of the exported item; or fails if the item already exists (see replace, update and add)||No||Yes|
|operation=”replace”||Replace replaces an existing item imported intoSPS2003 during a previous execution of the Import tool by executing a Delete followed by a Create; or fails if the item doesn’t exit.||Yes||Yes|
|operation=”add”||Add a) creates a new instance of the exported item if the item does *not* exist; or b) replaces an item if the item was imported into SPS2003 during a previous execution of the Import tool. This operation shouldn’t fail based on previous import operations||a) No b) Yes||a) Yes b) Yes|
|operation=”merge”||Add a) creates a new instance of the exported item if the item does *not* exist; or b) updates an item if the item was imported into SPS2003 during a previous execution of the Import tool. This operation shouldn’t fail based on previous import operations||a) No b) No||a) Yes b) No|
|operation=”update”||Update adds or replaces the values of selected attributes of an existing item imported intoSPS2003 during a previous execution of the Import tool; or fails if the item doesn’t exit.||No||No|
|operations=”ignore”||Processing for this item is skipped. The contents of the item are ignored.||n/a||n/a|
Secure Data Storage Working Group (sds-wg) Confidential Storage (CS): Functional Architecture Reference Models (CS-FARMs) 0.36 (whitepaper placeholder): Sample Diagrams
Almost 2 years ago when I developed and documented the Social Evolution models for Technology Adoption, I never dreamed that I would be writing an article with the above title.
Paraphrasing, the Social Evolution model states:
A #wanderer is someone who leaves their tribe to share their knowledge and wisdom with others; to later form a party of explorers to explore and conquer a common set of goals; and, even further on, create a clan, a band, a tribe, and a tribal society, a group of people who live and work together – a group of tribes organized around kinships.
The Social Evolution model was first documented (illustrated) here: Social Evolution and Technology Adoption. Later, the model was added to the list of what became 2of the 20+ models in the article: Technology Adoption Models: A Comprehensive Guide as:
- Model 2a: Social Evolution: Creation of Nation State, and
- Model 2b. Social Evolution: Defining Principles.
Model 2a appears below followed by Model 2b.
What I didn’t realize is that I was also defining a framework for a new political spectrum:
- True decentralization/self-sovereignty on the left
- Complete authoritarian centralization on the right
…and hence, a new Social Evolution model.
Is the Social Evolution model harmful? No, not at all …as long as it remains helpful in illuminating new concepts like the Self-Sovereignty Political Spectrum.
What is your self-sovereignty political affiliation?
- A decentralized/self-sovereign sheep (that needs to be protected by default), or
- An authoritarian centralizationist wolf (ready to devour your sheep mates)?
…or are you a centrist?
Have a great day.
“The mind once enlightened, cannot be darkened” – Thomas Paine
What is Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI)?
Self-Sovereign Identity, as a standalone phrase (or acronym), is a very confusing, overloaded, ambiguous term whose use should be avoided in all situations. In conversation, an article, or a standards document, it could mean any of the uncontracted terms in the following figure. The term Self-Sovereign Identity (or its acronym SSI) could refer to any or all of the uncontracted terms in the following figure – unless an author has taken care to be clear and precise with respect to every occurrence of the term and/or its acronym.
 The most recent example of SSI confusion is the Principles of SSI document published by the Sovrin Foundation (https://sovrin.org/principles-of-ssi/). The document makes no attempt to define SSI nor state what SSI is intended to be an acronym for. Princples of SSI has resulted in a lot of confudsion (https://hyperonomy.com/2018/12/18/definition-confuding/) in the decentralized identifer communities as different working groups try to apply the Principles in new domains without for descerning: a) precisely which definition/application of SSI should be used and b) the types or categories of principles being represented in the document. Without first having a clear and precise definition for (a), successfully achieving (b) is almost impossible.