Who can see your viewing activity?
Hi, this Eric in Bangkok - part of the Communications WG, so mainly an observer in this group
I’m Scott Whitmire from Phoenix, AZ. I’m working on an IEEE standard for medical imaging that will create ecosystems, so I am interested in how they need to work.
Thanks Eric and Scott.
I'm Tom Smedinghoff, a lawyer from Chicago. I've been working on identity legal issues for many years, and currently looking at international legal rules.
In the Governance Stack WG, We're starting to develop ideas around the various ecosystem participants including ecosystem operators. Worth a look and welcoming input: https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/Canonical+Use+Cases
Hi, it's Jim St.Clair, hello everyone!
Taylor Kendal (Denver, CO), Learning Economy Fndn. Supporting Internet of Education TF within TOIP.
Sorry, no mic. juggling two calls :)
Good description, @Drummond
Is the group of credential providers surrounding an individual an ecosystem, with those around a different individual a different ecosystem, or are they both the same ecosystem? In other terms, is an ecosystem an object or a class? I can see where multiple ecosystems might have the same governance framework that defines the pattern, but instantiates with different players.
I’d agree with the last part of the statement from Scott W.
@Scott Whitmire: what defines the ecosystem is a governance framework that establishes the policies the members of the ecosystem agree to follow. So yes, you could have an ecosystem GF that is designed for others to implement instances of it.
I think we need to emdoy this workflow in some toolset, maybe within the wiki
In “Create” and “Implement”, we can deep link anything semantic-related (i.e. credential definitions, schemas, etc.) to the Decentralized Semantics WG.
Yes, we are working on an overall process doc at the ToIP Foundation level that will help frame what happens where and what could be helped by toolsets.
Makes sense and Drumm, thx for the early guidance on the IoE TF.
So, we’re creating a mechanism for groups like my standards team to create ecosystem GFs that are then instantiated as participants sign on to a specific instance of the ecosystem defined by that GF. It sounds like we create the structure, components, and relationships between those components (the architecture of a GF) and provide some tools and minimum standards. There is probably more, but it’s really a standard for an ecosystem GF, based on what I hear @Drummond saying.
Ecosystem connotates a broad reach of command and control that requires other methods of cohesion and conformance than tight central control driven by a governance authority that has direct control over all actors. It requires cooperation among actors using interoperability, data exchange, interjurisdictional compromise and governance oversight measures.
@Scott, yes, the idea of the Ecosystem Foundry Working Group is to incubate ecosystem projects that will be instantiated and run by governance authorities (GAs). The idea is that the governance framework templates the GA needs will come from the work of the Governance Stack WG and the interoperable technology specs will come from the Technical Stack Working Group.
It *may* require cooperation, there are some types of ecosystems that are very much driven by a dominant playerthink automotive supply chain for example
Think complex adaptive systems rather than complicated engineered machinery
@Drummond, thanks, again. This is very helpful.
+1 to “complex adaptive systems”
So the actors are well defined, and the kinds of interactions they can undertake are well defined but the overall behaviour of the ecosystem is emergent
@John Jordan, I work in cancer research, I know non-engineers CAS quite well :-)
This is in stark contrast to trying to define all the possible interactions and prescribe the outcome
Can you drop a link to slides into cht sap?
Great perspective Dan +!
Sounds good, Dan.
One example: The set of medical providers who certify medical records to a collection controlled by the patient. The GF would define how new providers contribute new data and how the patient shares existing information with the providers in the ecosystem. It might also define a harmonized data model, or not, and whether that data is physically shared or the participants agree to grant access given by the patient.
Ooooo, Scott, I’m drooling ;-)
That’s a very sophisticated but a very powerful example.
+ on what Scott depicted. Even India is working on similar concept of “National Health Record” protocol
+1 Scott W. It starts with a definition how the business case that unifies all participates to a common purpose. What is the highest level definition that all participants can agree with? Start there and drill down in levels.
@Kaylan, yes, indeed, we hope the ToIP stack is going to be a key enabler of patient-centric healthcare worldwide
Agree with you Drummond
Access to data has been a problem for patients for decades. Most of the data my employer collects on a patient comes from other providers (I work for the Mayo Clinic and we’re typically a second or third tier provider).
Sounds like a good time for me to volunteer for the health TF in the Ecosystem WG
I'll submit something in the wiki
This is where these efforts relate to/overlap with identity profiles in HL7 and IHE
I’d like to suggest that this Chamber of Commerce example be written up on the EFWG branch of the wiki as an exemplar of an ecosystem project lifecycle.
Geographies where we do not have any standards laid down at the moment, can certainly help build the ecosystem with such depiction of the workflow and GF
+1 @kalyan, especially as these workflows are potentially defined as part of standards
thru W3C, ISO, etc
I think this could grow into a white paper from the EFWG that explains the typical lifecycle of a ToIP ecosystem project
Across ToIP we are struggling with WHAT we produce; HOW we produce it; WHERE we publish it
ApplePay and GooglePay are examples of existing ecosystems that we could use as another exemplar. They significantly different structures, so they serve as an example of two or more GFs solving the same problem, and co-existing quite well.
"How to get started in a community trust ecosystem"
This is great stuff folks .. I have to jump off for my BC work .. enjoy and have a great day!
@scott, plus numerous other new digital payment consortia
How about an example for creating, distributing, and managing ID badges, or hotel room keys, to phones or some other device?
I view Apple Pay and Google Pay being Governance Authorities in the Ecosystem of Digital Payments.
The Chamber example reates directly to the Casino industry, where I was just read they are considering a cashless payment system
Digital Payment Governance Authorities depend on interoperability standards
Here is an example of an ecosystem project that already has a lot of momentum from a year+ worth of work in the education space: https://wiki.trustoverip.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66102
They have to follow the same process
Thanks Jim, there are thousands of examples I’m sure. We need to create some examples for others to visualize and carry to their own examples. Good stuff.
My take away is that this example deck and exercise is a warm up for the WG. And if we keep this easy/similar to the template then we could make good progress
The deeper aspects of where it goes and is curated can continue to happen in parallel
I have one or two ecosystems in mind
(Actually Scott Davis @ ThoughtWorks is already working on this)
(User Journey stuff…. )
I could help with that
Am I wrong to think about BPM tools?
I’ve used a product management tool that’s would work with these slides
@Steven, excellent, do you want to propose it via the mailing list or wiki?
I’ll create a sample of the slides & then share the link so we could visualize it
Just a thought, while we work on Use cases in the workflow we just discussed, we should also attempt to put specific deliverables from each stage “Learn - Convene-Implement-etc.” This may help to flow in to other WGs