RE: [orms] Defining relationship among <Subject>, <Assertion> and <Context>

["Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)" <mmani@avaya.com>]

Tatsuki,

On 
1. the first two statements seem somewhat recursive - but I get the
idea. this describes (identifies) the entity under assessment (for
reputation).
   That seems acceptable rather than having an ID in the document that
signifies...what...i am not sure. Then, <context> described in 3 becomes
easier
   Understand and accept.
2. an assertion is a quantitative representation of reputation of the
Subject for that context. Unless their representation is modulated by
the
   context(rather, context-type), i.e., the scale of representation
(e.g., 1-to-10 or 1* to 5* notation or 0-100) is a function of the
nature of 
   context. Of course, the context can allow for more than more
representations (scales).

   Is the world of such scales finite or definable enough to document a
list of known (if extensible) types?
3. In the context of (2) above I generally agree with your statement on
Context (3)

Regards,
-mani
-----Original Message-----
From: Tatsuki Sakushima [mailto:tatsuki@nri.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 1:49 PM
To: orms@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [orms] Defining relationship among <Subject>, <Assertion> and
<Context>

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.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php