Talk:Identity metasystem

Merge

Both Information Card and Identity Selector articles contain significant information that have to backrefer to this article for context. As such, to reduce data redundancy the entire stack can be described here itself. --soum ^talk 07:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree You're talking about taking a concept, that of the metasystem itself and tying it up with implementation details. As more selectors come on-line that will become very unwieldy. Plus somehow you managed to duplicate a bunch of information yourself in your round of edits to the Information Card and Windows CardSpace articles.--Blowdart | ^talk 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire series (Information Card/Identity Selector/Identity Metasystem/Windows CardSpace/InfoCard) of articles is grossly lacking a structure. Thats my main problem with the set. While reading the articles, it is not very apparent where one ends and the other begins. Information is haphazardly split everywhere, and with duplicacies etc etc (e.g, the Information Card uses stuff - the abstract model and roles - which is actually part of Identity Metasystem to provide a background on how Information Cards are relevant). I know I myself duplicated stuff. I left it there because I wasn't done with it yet; nor could I come up with an idea for a good organization all by myself. Thats why I was thinking of making this concept the main article, and everything branching out from there.

For example, like it currently does, we can start with the description of the roles and the interaction betn (claims - negotiation and transport). With that setting up the context, we can go into a description of the UI metaphor (Identity Cards) and client softwares (Identity Selector). But it needs more description. It is not very clear to a layman how the roles and claims and identities play together. Nor is the relationship with identity cards clear.

Thats why I was saying merge them all together, so that one (assume unfamiliarity with the subject) can get a high-level knowledge of how all the components and roles fit together. So, that does mean bringing Identity Selectors and InformatioN Cards everything in here. And once this article has everything needed to build a self-sufficient overview, we can definitely carve out the details corresponding to any particular aspect out into its own article. The merge because it is easy to work when the information is available in the article than it is to add information bit by bit. And implementation articles (client, identity server, etc) should have enough redundancy to let them stand alone. Back references to these articles should be only required for deeper knowledge.

I am also putting in what you wrote on my talk page so that the discussion isn't fragmented:

Just been looking over your edits to Windows CardSpace. I've reverted the wording changes for the following reasons;

The fact that the UI is consistent is very important, it's part of the whole idea.
If you go through the specs you will see no reference to InfoCards at all. It is not an InfoCard it is an Information Card. Partly because someone else (Apple I believe) has the trademark on InfoCard.

I've also done a bunch of rewrites and reinclusions on Information Card, you managed to completely rearrange the types of card so it doesn't make much sense. Also InfoCardIcon.jpg has an incorrect description; that image is supposed to be used to indication Information Card support, it is not a representation of a card, nor indeed is it part of the CardSpace identity selector. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by a consistent UI? This phrase sounds exactly like a marketing blurb to me. Just from that line, what is it that you understand? Can you specify that without paraphrasing the line? I cannot see any way to do that. Its hardly relevant because of that.

I might be wrong about InfoCards, but as far as I remember, doesn't the Windows Live ID sign in page say "Sign in with your InfoCard"? And the OpenID providers also lets users download an "InfoCard", don't they?

I raised this point before, there is absolutely no references in the articles that suggest that these UI metaphors are actually called Information Cards (both the Higgins cards, and the CardSpace cards). Clubbing together a bunch of links in a References section does not help: It is not clear which is acting a source for what? References need to be inlined.

The quality of writing doesn't read encyclopedic but a manual-ish. Please see WP:MoS for good writing style. Specifically, it reads like giving directions to do something, not information about something. And usage of 2nd person language (you, your et al), which is generally frowned upon. --soum ^talk 12:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and throw in I-Card to the mix. Read all like they currently exist? Can you separate where one ends and the other begins? --soum ^talk 12:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this all points to having some central identity article, probably for the meta system rather than anything else. Consistent UI is *VERY* important; read the laws of identity, it has a law to itself. It provides safety and some security for the user. I'm not sure that the UI metaphor really is "Information Card", the "Information Card" format is pretty much the file format for delivery, and the underlying schemas for the request (at least to my mind), an identity selector is free to render however it likes as far as I can see. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying its not important (consistent UI). I am saying its useless *in its current form* - without prior knowledge it does not make any sense. What is the UI consistent with? Does it mean visiting card like structures arranged in a grid or what? It needs substantiation. And no one is going to read a referred link (talking about laws of identity). That must be summarized in the article itself if it is important.

And what is being referred to as "Information Card" - the visual representation of the security tokens? Or the internal serialized representation? I had the idea that it was the former (from reading the articles). But now you are saying its the latter!!! Since you seem much more knowledgeable than me in this field, I will leave it to you to sort it out. Btw, please try to provide as many inline references as you can. So, if in future some such confusion arises again, someone can read about it in the references and take a jab at clarifying it.

Btw, are we agreeing on that these articles need a lot of shake up to make the information structured and better presentable and accessible? --soum ^talk 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree it needs work, just what work is up for grabs. Consistent UI is for the login process, nothing more, you don't have to use a wallet/card metaphor at all as far as I can see. I will have a hunt for references and specs and see what I can come up with over the next week. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information Card is a Branded product name form Microsoft. While the Information Card architecture may use terms from an Identity Metasystem, it is not the Identity Metasystem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilleke (talk • contribs) 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Merge saga continues

I've merged I-Card with Information Card. That was the obvious and easy one to do. So, we now still have the confusion thicket of three articles (this one, Information Card and Identity Selector. Selector seems it should be separate, but Metasystem and Card will be hard to sort out. It probably makes sense to request assistance from a Wikiproject or something. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge between Identity metasystem and Information Card. I think a lot of the detailed information in information card would be lost but so little of it is sourced that that’s not a big issue to me. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the two oldest open merge requests in the entire English Wikipedia. The original contributors to this merge discussion have essentially retired from Wikipedia. This article is clearly something of a backwater, and I doubt you'll find more consensus arriving when so little discussion has happened in the long years preceding this. Dondegroovily, ITasteLikePaint: if you can come up with a reasonable merged article, please perform the merge as you think best. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]