FW: Terminology: Profile vs Metadata

For today’s call, I wanted to resend this for a possible discussion

From: Roger Bass [mailto:robass1@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:50 AM
To: bdxr@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Terminology: Profile vs Metadata

All,

We’re continuing to work with and reach out to other communities beyond PEPPOL – both the other EU LSPs, but also more broadly. To the extent there are terms that are commonly used elsewhere for certain concepts, it seems to me we should consider conforming BDX terminology to those terms.

In that light, I’d like to propose we start using the term ‘Profile’ rather than ‘Metadata’. Here are some of the other communities or instances where that term is used:

· Social networking: most people the notion of your ‘profile’ on Facebook (and, in the ‘Connect Protocol’ context, the notion of public vs private profiles)

· Financial services (US):

o The OFX protocol, used in online banking and payments, uses a Financial Institution Profile in setting up connections (see v2.1.1 here, section 7; section 7.1.4 discusses anonymous and authenticated signon to access profiles. The draft OFX 3.0 substantially updates identity and auth models).

o US Banks’ and Clearing House B2B Payment Directory discussion material talks about using a “social network approach to safeguard[ing] profiles”

· ebXML: includes the specification of Collaboration Partner Profiles (and Agreements)

Beyond this top-level terminology issue, some secondary questions arise:

· Whether a Profile is associated with an Entity, a Service or both, which may have architectural (i.e. cardinality) implications.

· Names to use for various individual services, both those that exist today (e.g. in PEPPOL), and new Connect Protocol services

Sander and I have had some discussions on that, and may have more to share with the TC before the next meeting.

Thoughts?

Best regards,

Roger

bdxr message