Re: [wsrp] [CR315] - Producers SHOULD or MAY do userProfile namemapping

[Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>]

Rich Thompson wrote:
> 
> I don't see this as an interop issue as it relates to making use of 
> additional data and therefore relates to interop in the same manner as 
> extension elements.
> 
> I think we had quite a debate about this in the v1 timeframe and came to 
> the consensus that any such mapping was going to require that someone 
> either know or be able to guess that two different user profile items 
> had the same semantics. As such, we decided to encourage both sides to 
> support name mapping so that the knowledge could be applied regardless 
> of on which partner's end the knowledge existed.
> 
> The potential interop issue would be if neither side made an effort to 
> map their internal user profile items to the spec defined set. The 
> potential change I could see adding in this area would be to add a 
> requirement that such mappings be done.

That's right. This is what I was referring to when I commented about 
possible interop issues. One of the parties must do the mapping to get 
this to work, and I feel that we should have a stronger requirement on 
the consumer, and a weaker requirement on the producer for mapping.

Subbu


> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> *Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>*
> 
> 05/04/05 02:28 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	Re: [wsrp] [CR315] - Producers SHOULD or MAY do userProfile name mapping
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point. However, there is room for interpretation of "valid
> reasons". We gain interop by treating SHOULD as a "MUST except under
> extraordinary circumstances", and encourage implementations to honor
> SHOULD under normal circumstances.
> 
> For this change request, if a Producer treats SHOULD as a MAY and does
> not do mapping, it would affect interop. Moreover, having two similar
> conformance statements for both the Consumer and the Producer also
> affects interop. Since both conformance statements use SHOULD, it is
> unclear what the guidance is, and how interop can be achieved?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Subbu
> 
> 
> Rich Thompson wrote:
>  >
>  > Since this will be a debate over the application of conformance
>  > language, the following are the copied definitions from RFC2119:
>  >
>  > *SHOULD*: This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may
>  > exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular
>  > item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed
>  > before choosing a different course.
>  >
>  > *MAY*: This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
>  > truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the item because a
>  > particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that it
>  > enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item. An
>  > implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
>  > prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does include
>  > the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the same vein
>  > an implementation which does include a particular option MUST be
>  > prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not
>  > include the option (except, of course, for the feature the option
>  > provides.)
>  >
>  >
>  > Saying the Producer SHOULD map user profile names allows for Producers
>  > to choose not to support name mapping (a valid reason for some
>  > implementations would be the impact on the PortletDescription of POPs),
>  > but does require that people understand the implications of that choice
>  > (less likely to receive the data).  Reducing this to "MAY" does not
>  > require the Consumer to do the name mapping, though it does make it
>  > easier for Producer developers to blow by the statement.
>  >
>  > Note: There is a corresponding SHOULD relative to Consumers mapping
>  > custom user profile names.
>  >
>  > Rich
>  >
>  >
>  > *Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS*
>  >
>  > 05/04/05 01:32 PM
>  >
>  >                  
>  > To
>  >                  wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
>  > cc
>  >                  
>  > Subject
>  >                  [wsrp] [CR315] - Producers SHOULD or MAY do 
> userProfile name mapping
>  >
>  >
>  >                  
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Document: Specification 2.0 Draft
>  > Requested by: Subbu Allamaraju
>  > Section: 5.1.2 PortletDescription Type
>  > Page: 25
>  > Line: 17
>  > Old Text:
>  > Any use of additional userProfile items specified as available when the
>  > Consumer registered SHOULD use the names the Consumer supplied.
>  >
>  > New Text:
>  > Any use of additional userProfile items specified as available when the
>  > Consumer registered *MAY *use the names the Consumer supplied.
>  >
>  > Reasoning:
>  > The current text places the burden on the producer to do the mapping.
>  > Since this requires the producer to change the portlet description after
>  > registration, producers will be required to maintain different portlet
>  > description for each portlet (even for POPs). The changed text
>  > would place less burden on producers. Producers can still do the
>  > mapping, but it should be completely optional (MAY).
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 
>