please correct the typo in the flyer "...verifier to automate the
identification of the of the organizatio..."

The taxonomy suffers from the same fundamental errors we have observed across more than one hundred past attempts: it conflates identity with several others concepts without providing clear distinctions. This is already apparent in the very first sentence: "It's user-centric and enhances privacy, as enables sharing identity data with just those who need to validate it, without relying on any central authority." Rather than providing a clear definition, a number of new and vacuous terms are being introduced (i.e. "user"). Aside from the tautological nature of the sentence, it is a testament to legacy technology paradigms, anchored in 'data' and 'data storage'. - At the core, the problem statement must anchor on what technology can address which is NOT identity but AGENCY. The benefit of distinguishing ‘digital agency’ from ‘digital identity’ is that the former speaks to a relevant legal concept, while the latter is just a vacuous metaphor. As such, using digital means to establish and document legally relevant agency lends itself to the protection of self-directed human activity. -- Currently law enforcement uses metaphors such as "identity theft" to describe the misuse of data. However, if someone has a copy of all your personal data he of course did not steal your agency, he may just use it to a) have others assign certain actions to you, or b) use it to influence your behavior. The latter are the problems which need to be addressed. - Intellectual honesty requires that we let go of the term "digital identity" or self-sovereign identity altogether ..