[cap-talk] "ambient authority" on wiki.erights.org

[Rob Meijer]

On Thu, June 11, 2009 21:25, Mark Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Rob Meijer <capibara at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hmm, possibly the inverse would make some sense though:
>>
>> "If each subject of a given type can operate on on an object, ..."
>>
>
> What do types have to do with authority, ambient or otherwise? I see no
> sense in either formulation.

I agree up to the point that I feel 'types' should not be part of a
definition as it is to narrow and to much tailored to specific granularity
and examples.

I can not think of any real example where the original formulation makes
sense. Inverting it like above it fits the example of
authority carried in a static members of a class (type) in class oriented
OO languages.

If authority is accessible through a static class level variable, than an
instance of this class has access to (ambient) authority by virtue of its
class (type). There thus appear some examples where type (of the subject)
is relevant.

In my view ambient authority would simply be the authority carrying subset
of static (in most cases) mutable state.

On a side note, I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with the lack of
distinguishing terminology for authority involving powers and authority
concerning secrets.

Rob