[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Feedback on "metasystem"
Other TC members have probably seen this
wave of questions asking us to clarify our use of the term “metasystem”. Ideas for how (and who) should best
respond? =Drummond From: community-bounces@idcommons.net
[mailto:community-bounces@idcommons.net] On
Behalf Of Robin Wilton Along the same lines as David's point: it seems
incongruous to me to have the term "metasystem" in the title of a
standard, where (as David notes) the specification actually deals with to (i)
the identity selector and Information Cards as conceptualised by one vendor. By
analogy, a "meta-language" is not itself a language or a part of a
language: it is a means for describing the characteristics of languages. Excellent point. I, too, am really baffled by the
choice of term here. Thanks, David, for speaking up. Perhaps the goal of the OASIS TC is indeed the
*entire* set of identity technologies out there, not just the card / WS-*
subset of it? On Oct 5, 2008, at 21:27 , David Recordon wrote:
So, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding
something. An OASIS TC is going to create a specification for
"Identity Metasystem Interoperability" using
Microsoft's Identity Selector Interoperability Profile (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=b94817fc-3991-4dd0-8e85-b73e626f6764&displaylang=en)
and OASIS' WS-Policy Guidelines (http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-policy-guidelines/) and
WS-Addressing (http://www.w3.org/Submission/ws-addressing/)
specifications. All of these being based around Information Cards yet
being described as the Identity Metasystem. Mike, Kim, and others have done a great job the past
few years introducing Information Cards and explicitly acknowledging them as
being *a part* of the Metasystem. Is this TC's name and the specification
that it plans to produce then not a tad dismissive of all the work the rest
of the identity community has been doing the past few years? (Please
don't interpret this as my attacking the people involved in the TC or the work
it plans to do, just trying to understand why it is being named the way that it
is.) --David On Oct 2, 2008, at 7:33 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
The OASIS Identity Metasystem
Interoperability Technical Committee (IMI TC) had a successful first meeting on
Monday and Tuesday this week. Here’s a brief summary of what was decided. Tony Nadalin of IBM and Marc
Goodner of Microsoft were selected as co-chairs of the committee. Mike
McIntosh of IBM and yours truly were selected as co-editors for the committee. There is consensus in the working
group on what we want to do, how to do it, and that it should be done
quickly. Specifically, the TC agreed to: - Combine the ISIP 1.5, Web
Guide 1.5 and WS-Addressing Identity specs into a single document using OASIS
formatting conventions. - Title the document to
match the TC name: Identity Metasystem Interoperability 1.0. - Ensure the output remains
backwards compatible with ISIP 1.5 and the Web Guide 1.5 so as not to break
existing Information Card software implementations. - Close on a committee
draft of the combined document to post publicly before IIW (Nov 10th) and
socialize it with the participants. - Collect feedback through
the TC comment list and address it. - Create a separate
non-normative commentary document based on the ISIP Guide that will not become
a formal standard. In addition, the TC will accept
input from the SAML TC and work with them on creating a profile for using SAML
2.0 tokens in Information Cards. No real surprises here. And
that’s a good thing.
Yours from London,
-- Mike _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
--
Corporate Architect - Federated Identity CTO Office (Business Alliances)
robin.wilton@sun.com Tel: +44 (0)705 005 2931 http://blogs.sun.com/racingsnake |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]