Working with Identity projects, as well as working on the Body of Knowledge for IDPro, confirms that the language of Identity has many valid dialects, depending on the context of the practitioner. There is no true “terminology” of Identity. Experience also shows that communicating across these dialects is hard, and leads to unnecessary misunderstandings and delays. We all simplify, that’s unavoidable. But since we very often also assume, communication breaks down. People come into Identity from different angles, and as such their words of Identity will have different meanings in different contexts. The key is to understand these differences. This session is about how to establish a common framework for Identity language, for your own specific context. We can identify scenarios where special communication is required, such as the Identity language differences in writing a presentation to management or accurately capturing requirements and user stories from end users. We can determine which words are most likely to have different and conflicting meanings, and either not use those, or know how to minimize the confusion. And we can write our own localized identity terminology, relevant for the organization, project or initiative in question.