HeadsUp: Profile Schema Problem

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Everyone,

I have to eat a bit of humble pie here this morning and admit that I 
did not check the latest additions to the profile schema in Appendix 
A. Gary notified Jacob and I over the weekend that his XML editor 
would not validate the schema, so I checked it myself and discovered 
the same thing. The problem was with the additional material added, 
specifically the portions aimed to enforce the changes to <code>, 
<eventCode> and <geocode>. The first version I distributed did 
validate, and I assumed the additions would validate, so I didn't 
check and that is solely my responsibility.

So I will ask to add an amendment to the motion to approve the 
current draft as a Committee Draft to do one of the following:
1) include a version without the additions, which validates but only 
enforces changes to cardinality;
2) comment-out the additions which would then validate (I have 
checked this) and add language asking for comment on whether or not 
reviewers would prefer to have a schema for the profile that enforces 
restrictions; or,
3) remove the schema entirely, say nothing, and see if there is a 
comment on the lack of a schema.

Of these, I prefer and I think Jacob also prefers 3) because crafting 
a schema that actually enforces the specification could create more 
problems than it prevents. Other OASIS Profiles also do not include a 
schema, such as:
Multiple resource profile of XACML v2.0 
http://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/2.0/access_control-xacml-2.0-mult-profile-spec-os.pdf
Hierarchical resource profile of XACML v2.0 
http://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/2.0/access_control-xacml-2.0-hier-profile-spec-os.pdf

I have already gone on record saying I would not oppose other motions 
by other members that bear on the question, so I would ask only for 
the same consideration.

Cheers,
Rex
-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670