Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Always fun watching the press talk about projects you're related to when you don't actually have any involvement with reporters directly. :)

So we have a handful of quite reasonable coverage of Project Concordia yesterday:
- The Seattle PI (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/116290.asp ) who focuses on Microsoft's participation and has a long quote from Roger Sullivan of the Liberty Alliance
- Internetnews.com ( http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3681941) who has a much larger article talking more about what Concordia is and why it is important quoting analysts as well
- VNU Net ( http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2191491/concordia-aims-digital-identity) goes for the short and sweet
- Computerworld ( http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9023619&intsrc=news_ts_head) seems to be quite balanced, focusing more on the need for these technologies to interoperate in order to see even wider adoption

Then there is SearchWebServices.com (http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid26_gci1259817,00.html ) who seems to have blown this way out of proportion. :-\

For the first time representatives of Liberty Alliance and Microsoft are going to sit down together along with VeriSign Inc. in an attempt to bring interoperability to their competing identity management systems, the three organizations announced today.
I really doubt this is actually the first time that those of us participating have spoken together, especially informally, in a public venue. I'm also confused as to what Microsoft and VeriSign announced.

With Burton Group Inc. providing neutral ground at its upcoming Catalyst 2007 conference in San Francisco at the end of this month, representatives of the three organizations will begin the process of finding a way for their technologies to all get along.
I think it is great that this is occurring at Burton's catalyst conference, though interoperability conversations are certainly nothing new.

Sitting down together at Catalyst will be Conor Cahill, identity architect of Intel Corp., representing Liberty's SAML 2.0-based Liberty identity standards; Mike Jones, director of identity partnerships at Microsoft, representing Windows CardSpace; and David Recordon, VeriSign's innovator for advanced products and research, representing OpenID.
Obviously depends on your interpretation of "representing OpenID", but my role on the panel is not that of representing the OpenID Foundation or wider community. Rather am there as an expert on OpenID and the space in general along with Conor and Mike.

So like I said, always fun watching how the press runs with the same story.

This morning Computer Business Review has an article (http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=E7FF5A0A-DD30-490D-930C-BE21DDCA3CAD) which I think best discusses the natural tension between everyone involved. I think the largest question here is what does it mean for "OpenID" to do anything? From my perspective individuals can participate in an event and represent OpenID as a technology, though certainly not as a community.

The short side of the story here is that I'm on a panel at a conference in a few weeks along with a someone from the Liberty Alliance and someone from Microsoft where Boeing, AOL, the BC government, and others will talk to us about things they'd like to see from OpenID, SAML, and CardSpace. I don't want to diminish the value of the event, but the real story will be later this year if Project Concordia (or anyone else for that matter) is successful in creating useful interoperable code between these technologies.