RE: [rights] Core, Standard Extension,Conformance and Profiles - A non political discussion

[Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>]

Title: Message

Bob,

 

    Good catch. The reason for that is, because I am *not* assuming Base Profile = Core Spec. It may very well be; In that case at least the Base Profile needs to declare concrete elements/types, else we wouldn't be able to get conformance and interoperability. This would be our work in the profiles group.

 

    And it is possible that the Base profile would take many of the Core elements/typesand even some elements from std extensions. Then Core profile would be the Base profile plus whatever is left out of the core specs and so on ....

 

cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: DuCharme, Bob (LNG) [mailto:bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:22 AM
To: 'Krishna Sankar'; rights@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [rights] Core, Standard Extension, Conformance and Profiles - A non political discussion

>base is framework, mostly abstract, but the types that build the rights language

 

which is how I understood core,

 

>core specs = basic profile (in some sense)

 

Yes. But in your first message you wrote

 

>Core Profile (= Base + Core Spec)

 

so now I'm wondering about the distinction between base and core. Essentially, I had a certain picture of the core vs. standard extension in my mind (in which the core was mostly abstract types to build on with extensions) and I'm trying to see how your base relates to those two components.

 

Bob

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:15 AM
To: rights@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [rights] Core, Standard Extension, Conformance and Profiles - A non political discussion

Bob,

 

    Good question.

 

    I assume you are talking about core and standard extensions from the specs point of view ( and !profiles).

 

    My view is that base is framework, mostly abstract, but the types that build the rights language. Extensions would be optional sub-elements. The could be complementary as well i.e. different sub-elements for different domains or functionalities, for example we could have elements for permanent transfer of control (for sale) and temporary delegation of control (for renting). My guess is that core specs = basic profile (in some sense) and the other profiles would choose from standard extensions or define their own.

 

    Another distinction, Thomas was talking about was that the core would be static i.e. fewer changes while the standard extensions would grow over time. So the basic language constructs and vocabularies would go in the core. From what is there now, I am comfortable with these two "rules"

 

    Does this make sense or do you see additional rules/guidelines ?

 

    BTW, we could extend the same guidelines for the profiles as well. the Basic profile would consist of fundamental stuff that one expects in *every* rights language processor. The only caveat is that we also might need a Basic-Lite to accommodate resource constraint devices.

 

cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: DuCharme, Bob (LNG) [mailto:bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:50 AM
To: 'Krishna Sankar'; rights@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [rights] Core, Standard Extension, Conformance and Profiles - A non political discussion

Krishna,

 

Could you discuss the distinction between base and standard extensions a little? As we sort features, I assume we'd want to have some guidelines to help determine whether something was better off in the former or latter category, and I was wondering what you had in mind.

 

Bob DuCharme
Consulting Software Engineer, LexisNexis
Data Architecture, Editorial Systems and Content Engineering

-----Original Message-----
From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 7:54 AM
To: rights@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [rights] Core, Standard Extension, Conformance and Profiles - A non political discussion :o)

Hi all,

 

    Here is my (technical) understanding on the above topic.

 

    a)    The core as it stands now, is a framework. It consists of many abstract types and relationships between them. Wouldn't make any sense to make the core mandatory or even a base for conformance.

 

    b)    The standard extensions are a little more concrete, they add a few more supporting elements.

 

    c)    Which means we need to develop profiles as basis for implementation and hence conformance.

 

    d)    Different profiles could be disjoint, based on a light-weight hierarchy. i.e. have a base profile (which everyone should implement) and then different profiles which could build on each other or stand by themselves.

 

    e)    For starters, I see three profiles - Base Profile, Core Profile (= Base + Core Spec) and a standard extensions profile (=Base+Core Spec+Std Extensions Spec or Core Profile + Std Extensions Spec)

 

    f)    Now we can discuss conformance. The conformance would be based on profiles and o the profiles document would say what conformance means. May be there are levels of conformance for each of the profiles. Of course, the Base Profile would need to be a binary conformance or in other words the Base Profile has mandatory full conformance.

 

just some thoughts.

 

cheers

 

BTW, am in Europe doing some EU security work and so missed all the excitement at the GB meeting.