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 
I found https://kiwiirc.com/client (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 “http://www.foaf-project.org/
— 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 data.fm / rww.io – 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.