This all makes sense, at a basic pass. But what does it tell me to claim that an Admin is a Name and a Password? (It probably doesn't help that I'm used to ro

This all makes sense, at a basic pass. But what does it tell me to claim that an Admin is a Name and a Password? (It probably doesn't help that I'm used to role based permissions where you will emphatically not have a name associated with the authorization. You should be able to trace it back to an authentication, which will have a name, but those are different.) I'm also confused with these assertions, as with this formulation, you make it far too easy to think that a User is an Admin. Due to the norm for equality rules being that they are transitive. Again, if this is just a shortcoming of this particular example, I'm fine with that. I am not trying to tear down the whole idea over the example. I literally just don't understand what it would mean for my model to say that an admin is a name and a password. Transitively, that feels very dangerous when considered in the way I'm used to modeling authentication and authorization.