Defining relationship among <Subject>, <Assertion> and <Context>

[Tatsuki Sakushima <tatsuki@nri.com>]

I think that the relationship of those three elements defines the foundation of ORMS structure. Therefore, clear and concise definition of those are very important. I summarize my views of those below. Please provide yours to clarify what those elements mean. We can use common senses among us and put them into functional design of each elements. Thank you in advance.  

Tatsuki

-----

1. The definition of <Subject>

I thought that <Subject> was an identifier of a reputation document. But I am considering it is an identifier of subject evaluated by this document. If the identifier in <Subject> is equal to the identifier of this document, we don't have to change the definition. But if we assume they are different, we should keep them separate by defining an "id" attribute in <Reputation> instead.

In some e-commerce cases, identifiers of reputation documents may not be so important. But <Subject> is important. The IDs may be optional. 

2. The definition of <Assertion>

Does this element hold information what attributes of <Subject> is evaluated? I'd like TC members to share your image of <Assertion>. To me, it is functionally similar to <Context> (Its function is Namespace of reputation and score type definition. Assertion can be defined under <Context>). I am wondering they should be consolidated or keep separated. It can contain IDs imported from other documents like SAML.

3. The definition of <Context>

I thought that having <Context> element is good idea. I am considering that it defines the namespace of reputation document and more detailed schema for <Score> elements. It can also define what information should be in <Assertion> as claims about <Subject>.

-- 
Tatsuki Sakushima
NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.