The issue of Information and Identity Governance (Identity Assurance, Identity Management, Data Protection, Access Control, etc.) has led to much debate over recent years.
Even the fundamental definitions are not agreed by all participants, and the words used often differ from their common meanings. This is compounded when translating across different languages.
Questions to consider...
- 1. International Glossary - Can we create an international glossary of Information and Identity Governance terminology with details of the implied linguistic and cultural differences?
The current debate usually begins with “principles”, “values” and “self-evident truths”. Some of these are based on extensive debate and review (e.g. those for “Data Protection”). Others are not, and may be driven by implicit or explicit agendas.
- a. How widely accepted are they?
- b. Are they culturally or socially dependent?
- c. Do the words used carry different meanings and connotations according to context and background?
- 2. Standard Terminology - Are the different schools of thought and usage such that no new attempt to standardise terminology will be more successful than those which have failed in the past.
- 3. Translation Dictionary - If so, is it practical to produce a “translation dictionary” between the different sub-species?
For example, Microsoft "claims-based authentication" (almost!) translates into Jericho Forum "rule-base authorisation". This is for linguistics/anthropology as much as technology students.