Identity fragmentation

The Concept of identity fragmentation has come-up in past.  

I seem to remember a note considering that a person is split if / when the use of persona comes about. (reference doesn’t come to mind atm).
I was working through the needs of a webized instant messaging method, similar to <microblog>, defined for instant messages; and it’s various use-cases; IRC, SMS, traditional instant messaging applications, etc.
Perhaps also; through the application of a webized – RWW Cloud storage enabled <microblog> equivalent; considering other potential applications, more specifically tailored to ‘secure messaging’; which is also needed in commerce and other areas.
This in-turn got me thinking today about the identity declarations; and in-turn, fragmentation.
Perhaps the factors are that traditionally, identities become fragmented due to organisational influences.
EG: having more than one facebook account, becomes a painful exercise; apps compatible with facebook auth; may not all work together, whilst device auth in relation to these social-networking platforms; often do not support more than one account on these systems.
Therein; the influencing factor to identity fragmentation is organisationally influenced; not personally, and increasingly more difficult to personally influence due to organisational strategies implemented through information technologies.
The most ubiquitous example of identity fragmentation today; is between a persons accounts on say – facebook, linkedin, google and other portals.
Their ability to self-define fragmentation is, however, far more difficult.  Therein, a few concepts start to play a role around what i’ve topically suggested might be considered ‘definable identity fragmentation’, writing some (draft) notes about it [1]
I found (which is not webized, or integrated with WebID) interesting in that A person has the capacity to use different persona, easily.  In seeking to log IRC Data onto a CloudStorage (RWW type) service; the identity issue therein, pursued me.
Without logging; they could simply type a different nick-name. this in-turn creates anonymity; which in-turn affects accountability in a particular way.
When considering this in economic terms; it is like cash.  People steal your wallet, too bad; can’t track the cash.
Ideally, without anonymity; persona functionality could be created by a user having different FOAF files; representing the ‘nicknames’ or persona or a person. Therein, perhaps, the authenticating entity is the server side of the browser / RWW Cloud Storage relationship; authenticated in-turn by an actively authenticated relationship to a browser, that has a WebID. This in-turn may still, result in a feed being serviced from the same static IP Address (somewhere in the chain) or same domain; and whilst other means exist, discerning the difference between respecting privacy, and supporting it – is a multi-faceted issue.
I read on irc #foaf “ — The Web, The World, Us, You and Them — “There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don’t.”
I disagree.  do you need to now go make a new group for me?  or can i easily become my own ‘kind of person’, whilst still being able to communicate effectively with others…
I would sincerely like to launch a simple service Based on something like / – however, it is also very important to me; that no-matter what vendors i engage to ensure identity data, support for KYC and related doctrine – is highly supported and secured; that the information contained within those accounts is not part of any company intellectual property portfolio for company use and/or purposes.  To me; my opportunity is in making those types of services available to people, because for far too long others have exploited their information in ways they wouldn’t even know enough about to dream about – and i hope, to support their use of their data, as a infrastructure provider; as to afford the account holder, the economic benefit of exploiting their data exclusively save exceptional circumstances where a court-order demands an account be provided to a court of law.

Obviously; if a user wishes to make their data available for data-mining – they can do so.  Perhaps the service is a bit like a ski-lodge or a cooperative; where others pay – they’re shareholders who hold a share in the facility, which in-turn reduces their costs, and 1 share = 1 vote.  However, whilst i could consider a multitude of models; the question still remains,

What RDF distinguishes one format of account system; one form of identity, from another; therein denoting, legitimacy in relation to an act of communication with or in relation to; another, as described by an identity document.


ISSUE: Definable Identity fragmentation


Define the role of participants as to prescribe (via semantics) the role in which contributions are made; to whom, by whom and explicitly how, why, in relation to and by whom such considerations are put.


Currently (or perhaps traditionally) identities have not linked easily between programmatically enveloped vectors. Therein, the role of contributing humans becomes vague; in-turn obfuscating the purpose, role and function of contributors; unnecessarily polluting semantics embodied within semantically notated contributions.

Consideration: Perhaps the consideration herein is service orientated fragmentation, vs. user-orientated fragmentation.

When designing a distributed or decentralised system, perhaps the predicate structure can assert differentiated views.


1. A Service

–    I seek users of my service.

–    I seek customers

–    Users provide me data

–    I Use data provided to my service by users to generate customers.

2. A Customer

–    I pay for a Service

–    I provide revenue for a Service

–    The Service does something i am willing to pay to support my needs.

3. A Shareholder

–    I am responsible for a Service

–    I am involved economically in a service

–    I derive Revenue from the Service

–    I support the Service

–    I Share in the benefit created by The Service.

4. A User

–    I am a person

–    I value my Privacy

–    I prefer to direct my own life

–    I am subject to The Rule of Law

–    Money influences my life and survival

5. I am an employee

–    I am a person acting for another.

–    This may be deemed as an agent behaviour

–    My role is defined; my ideology is secondary to the requirements of my role

–    My role is defined for the purpose of supporting the development of the employers works

–    An employer may be a Customer, Service, User or shareholder(s)

–    I have legal obligations for another, as an Agent

Users have implicit ideologies, where some may be more debatable than others…

–    Identity is important to my security

–    I prefer to understand the Agreements i make with others

–    Maintaining my Agreements is important to me

–    I do not seek the law to be more or less accessible to me, than it is to others.

–    I believe in human rights.

Services may also have ideologies

–    These users are my agents.

–    My Agents collect data i sell to my customers

–    I believe my Customers are those who provide me money for the purpose of doing something specific for them, as a customer.

–    If i give Users data functionality freely – like presentation, distribution and storage; they should let me do whatever i want, subject to law, with their data.

Similarly shareholders have ideologies

–    A shareholder shall be entitled to shareholder benefits, such as free or discounted services;

–    Any net profits generated by the organisation may be returned to shareholders by way of dividend.

–    Members of the public shall be treated differently to shareholders

–    only natural legal entities shall be entitled to be shareholders.

–    governance of the organisation shall be appropriated by way of shareholder ballot.

–    for the purpose of administration, different classes of shares shall be issued.

Similarly; customers have ideologies

– The fee required by the service provider shall provide a greater value of service than the provision of remunerative benefit to the service provider alone; being a sole consideration of ‘value’ provided forthwith, between the parties.

Employee’s have a role

–    The role is defined in a way that may not conform to personal ideologies

–    Employees may have duty of care for an organisation

–    Employees have roles, in which they act as an agent

–    Employee’s are persons, however they do not act as a person but rather as an employee

whereas a user, shareholder, service, customer or employee, or collectively ‘the parties’ enter into agreements for trade on a specified basis; this does not provide unfettered ‘license’ for any and/or all other purpose.

Herein; is a description of an ideological process embodied within an imaginary service.  These forms of services are mechanically similar to that of many internet based data-services, where the delineation of ‘what is a customer’ and ‘what is a user’ is perhaps less clear than might be deemed ideal, for the purpose of ubiquitous engagement practices to services.

Questionably;  schema definitions should support iterative definitions as to ensure the serialised readability of a role being beyond that of the context of requirements for a service.

In some forums, it is suggested that where ambiguity is allowed; interpretation of the implicit and explicit repercussions of these terms be construed to benefit the more vulnerable party.

Explicitly; society has evolved languages, communication systems and other mechanics of social-systems, as to enshrine usability, capability and support for the people, of their particular socio-economic and/or ideological precinct; and therein, requirements of that group – being to support growth and prosperity; therein, factors of flora, fauna and broader environmental influences becoming factors or facets of growth, prosperity and as an incumbent; terms of defining development.

WebID, and other manifest concepts of internet connected and communicated identity management systems; seemingly have difficulty in describing the role for which the identity service itself is furnished.

The term ‘denotes’ is used to suggest for instance; the term ‘agent’ denotes a ‘person’ or ‘actor’; however it seemingly does not state clearly, for which role or capacity they, as a person, are deemed an ‘agent’; nor does it clearly state that the term ‘agent’ is used to define the use of the document embodying the identity claims, for the purpose of acting as an ‘agent’ of the ‘person’ specifically.

Whilst it is reasonable to understand that expert technologists and/or other expert professionally qualified individuals within this specific area of information sciences; may reasonably determine and/or navigate solutions that appropriately reflect their own ideological views upon their lives, as influenced by membership and communications with communities – it is also reasonable to assume that the role of such people professionally, is not to necessarily enforce a particular ideology – other than that required by law – but rather, to facilitate the development of information science procedure, means and mechanism; as to entitle others with basic skills and related embodiments or usability; to discern the difference qualities of services made available; therein inclusive of, the terms of trade for which any such service is being offered.

Perhaps the ramification of this conceptualised differentiator; is the ability to describe terms, which are often legal in nature; in a manner that may be prescribed to an array of differentiated interfaces, selected by a user; for the purpose of interpreting and/or managing roles in relation to prescribed terms.

Reasonably; this may be deemed to be adjunct to the interests of incorporated entities, and the services provided by such entities to users, traditionally.

Therein perhaps the debate of; duty of care, may become a considered argument for why it is reasonably practical and beneficial for a service provider to deliver such a form of pragmatic user-definable service preferences, as a means to ensure the terms of trade are explicit and understood by the parties at the time of trade.   Therein also; perhaps the desire to ensure a log is available, transportable and easily interpreted; outlining the use or communications between parties as is facilitated in relation to all parties, of which any party is involved when carried out digitally, involving an ‘agent’ of a ‘person’, or some-such definition closely defined in meaning or interpretation, as to outline the ideology of a person being made capable of managing their own influences upon others through any interpretative means communicated digitally.



– I Have a ‘personal’ Facebook Account

– I work for a company, my role includes works on ‘social media’

– I work for a Company. We publish materials online sourced from Public Relations Associates

– I work for a datamining company.  We get Data from the Internet, so that we can sell analytics to customers

– I am a company. I get data from the internet sourced from users; which i then sell in the form of a product

– I am a bank.  I have a fiduciary responsibility to provide you Banking Services.

– I am a Doctor.  I require as much information about you, as possible, in-order to treat you, supporting your healthcare.

– I am a lawyer. I require legitimate information in-order to support your needs pursuant to the rule of law.

– I am a teacher. I will help qualify you in an area you want to learn, or can demonstrate that you know already.

– I am a contributor.  I exist. I seek to make positive contributions.

– I am a person.  My survival is valued more highly than most of my ideologies.  I chose to strive towards the best possible contributions to the world, i am possibly made capable of supporting as an individual, with specific forms of communication skills, and capabilities to act, Make & Do.

Socio-Economics and the evolution of Relational Database Technology.

Thinking about life, before computing technologies became so pervasive in life…. 

Businesses and corporations worked upon systems of trust of individuals far more, than is evident today. Before computing systems, rooms of people worked on writing and reviewing documentation, and in-house librarians cataloged information for organisations in a manner that could be resourced locally. Individuals communicated by letter, which took sometime to author (with relevant information or references) and obtain responses.  Communications systems developed over the last 50 years, have dramatically changed the way in which we work, consume and participate in society as citizens.

The act of manufacture, trade and citizenship were governed by individuals and groups who had inherent knowledge in their heads, about a particular topic for which they could discharge their duties, responsibilities and authority upon any particular ‘puzzle’.  Individuals with far less oversight, still expected to provide an accountable direction, as a duty bound agent for incorporated entities.  Oversight of decisions was far more cumbersome yet it was simply not possible to centralise authority in anyway representative of todays society, through the use of internet, relational databases and interface technologies.

The role of the relational database as a scientifically defined product is often overlooked in how, such technology, has been applied in different ways, in different industries and specialisations beyond or outside of the realm, of digital data-storage specifically. 

The functional characteristic of relational database technology, pervasively influenced the ‘business rules’ used by technology companies, evolving around the functional or scientific qualities presented by their technology of trade, and its reliance upon relational database technology.  Arguably, a driver of sense, which has become socio-cultural manifestation of technology use.  Much like the way society changes through the use of plastics, or oil-based fuels, the ramification of the often forgotten about relational database, have had a remarkable effect.

The driver of function for systems, facilitating economics for entities, funds that supported the workers and their families; organisationally these systems were used to ‘optimise workflows’, ‘structure operations’.  Throughout the period, global corporations developed.  Casualisation of the workforce ensued.  Changes to labour markets, from life-long professions to short-term roles, and the needs of workers, health of people, psychology and an array of other ‘intangible traits’ may arguably be considered sacrificed to the needs of the system; which though the application of relational database technology, needs a central, hierarchical, system of internal language, roles, functions and processes, all with reporting lines that feed up towards the ‘user-interface’ with an easily understood outcome.  Whether the report says  ‘ok’, ‘pass’, ‘fail’ or something more sophisticated these systems were born through the works of teams, using relational database technology to define rules, program documents and convey those needs into a means that the system can compute.  A means that is all-inclusive, not enabled at ‘web-scale’. If it is not incorporated, it does not compute, and those that best know have sufficient contributors as to ensure their system maximises the total amount of possible functions, within any given (internal) system.  

Where command structures failed to attend to the pro-grammatical defined sequences, an opportunity was not identified; alternative ‘dictionaries’ simply not available.   In-turn mirroring these computer-science qualities, in the way organisations designed to support technology was also modelled.  Whether it was the design of the computer that became the key decision maker, or the designer of the organisation, is perhaps a philosophically challenged yet academic discussion.

With the advent of Internet, application design has become an area of knowledge systems developed, in concert with the evolution of computing systems.  As Internet Protocol, and the World Wide Web (or Hyper Text Transfer Protocol – or HTTP) started to emerge, the world considered different ways in which to develop this platform. It was viable to build applications or software in a manner that may have been available on internet – but was principally designed to work on a specific system, whether that system lived in a data centre, computer room, workstation of mobile device.

In the late 1990’s, many early adopters, the early innovators of HTTP technologies started to consider how to decentralise internet application development and systems. Whilst the first web-browser could author, edit and view webpages – A function that was soon lost, for many years, and whilst some considered how this might be done in a way that they claimed to own as a proprietary invention; others grew works surrounding methodologies of how to deliver these forms and functions, through standards.  

A language was openly developed that was designed to be understood across the internet. A language that allowed users to define dictionaries, usable by other internet accessible systems, so long as the address of the dictionary, for that language, was included in the same document that is written to do something in association to that dictionary, the ability for a multitude of documents written or ‘linked’ to common dictionary definitions, could be understood collectively by a user, who in-turn could diminish their reliance upon relational databases, and take-up a new option of using a system that resourced knowledge from an array of different contributors, different internet locations as to collectively provide the resource requested. The embodiment of emergence, for ‘Graph Database technology’, was then established.   A technology that can replace relational database technology; systems that offer much greater flexibility, accessibility and discovery of terms and concepts too sophisticated for traditional relational database applications.  Graph Database technology brought about an opportunity for developers to not only write applications that had a system for storing information in a way that their own application understood, but also in a way that other machines, other applications on the internet could understand. In this way, a developers system could not simply resource more information from the internet for facets of knowledge they were unable to include as an ‘island’ or ‘silo’, but also, these systems could ‘seek’ information from the web to improve functionality and opportunity for the users of their systems.  In the late 90’s, these theories significantly changed opportunities, theoretically, in how applications could be designed ‘for internet’.  

Without the linguistic capabilities provided by Graph Database Technologies, it was simply impossible – in the vast majority of circumstances – to deliver a system that was capable of being reliable, whilst servicing broader needs of communities and societies, that was functionally incompatible with Relational Database Technology.

The Concept of Graph Database technology has been evolving for almost 20 years.  Over that time, through a relatively small group of contributors, languages, services and platforms have been developed that make the reality of building technology using Graph Database technology – Viable for almost any web-developer. 

The implications of Graph Database Technology, have also brought about an introduction to the concept of Philosophy for Internet.   Internet and Computing technology is an appendage to our lives, yet through the evolution of computing systems – in the primitive years of its technical function and implementation, the philosophy of how technology should be applied has not been an an ingredient of specialisation for those involved in defining the technical capabilities of a system. 

Through the introduction of Graph DB’s, it is believed this will change.  The era and meaning of a decentralised web is ‘linked’ to the concept of a graph database, the form, function and opportunity provided by available dictionaries, by facets of pro grammatical code that others are able to incorporate into their application eco-systems and the means in which such systems provide dignity and opportunity to others.  The capacity to resource ‘knowledge’ is far less centralised. 

Yet still, far too few understand what, how and where Graph Database Technology can support a user as a tool that is ‘fit for purpose’, and within scope of functional specification for a design of which they seek to create.  Arguably, this is not simply a technical problem, but also one of philosophy.   The internet has created a global system of ‘compliance’ through the use of relational database technologies.  In-order to change these systems, the first step may be awareness of the situation and that alternative technologies are available, providing functions that many may consider to be from the realms of ‘science fiction’…. 

Don’t be afraid of ‘Peer to Peer’

A Decentralised systems use functions to acquire data, that is often called ‘Peer to Peer’.  The term ‘peer to peer’ has had some very bad connotations put upon it, through its capacity to be used for narfarious purposes, which has been the subject of very successful product commercialisation and related press coverage.  In-turn, many think ‘peer to peer’ is a bad quality, rather than considering the merit of the technology or its purpose.  Many people do not know, that ‘peer to peer’ technology runs on every computer as a basic and mandatory requirement for internet technology.  The way systems find internet addresses, is a ‘peer to peer’ application. 

The technical Meaning of ‘peer to peer’ essentially means that two entities are able to communicate without authority, inclusion, conference and direction of a mediating entity.

A sociological example would be to consider a centralised system, as a method that requires two parties to communicate via a lawyer.  The lawyer has specific language they prefer to use, and will interpret the communications between two entities on their behalf.  Perhaps Both parties have Lawyers and the lawyers communicate.  When working with lawyers, lawyers often prefer that the parties do not communicate without the presence and utility of the lawyer.

In this way, Centralised systems share a similar trait as an individual who is represented by a lawyer.  They are unable to communicate directly, and as such need to transmit and receive information via their lawyer.

A peer to peer application is like a multitude of entities communicating directly to each-other, without the need for lawyers.

Just because an application uses Peer to Peer communications, do not mean that people are not accountable for what they transmit / receive.   The flaws in internet technology relating to accountability can arguably be fixed through the use of peer-to-peer technology, in ways simply not capable for centralised systems.   Computer systems are not similar to verbal conversations in person.  Computers record all data put upon a system, until such a time as a command is sent to that machine that it is ok to delete the data; and most-often even after that command has been received by the computer, that the area for storing the information on the computer is reused to store something else.