From: Gearard Woods [mailto:gewoods@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 3:52 PM
To: Jeff Bohren
Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models?
I think I'm still being unclear. What I'm referring to is the inclusion and
reference to the specific schema language in the spec. Specifically, the ONT
proposal includes the notion of an "spml" attributeDefinition and
objectClassDefinition. These include specific references to the SPML 1.0
dsml-based model. This is not a runtime construct, it's embedded in the schema
for the proposal. The WS-Provisioning approach is to leave the schema language
definition out of the specification and have it be described at runtime.
Simply because in the ONT proposal the schema is delivered using a runtime
request does not mean that it is the same thing at all. Surely you see the
distinction here.
I'm obviously repeating myself but the point is that
by embedding the SPML1.0 constructs, through inclusion of the schema and use
of the types, you are now "bound" to that legacy.
Gerry
"Jeff Bohren"
<jbohren@opennetwork.com>
 |
03/02/2004 10:32 AM |
 To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models? |
Under the ONT Proposal the SPML client may issue a schema request to the spml service. The response will indicate whether the provisioning schema is defined using SPML schema notation, or XSD schema notation, and will include either the provisioning schema itself, or a reference to an external XSD document. In both cases both the schema notation and the schema are determined at call time (i.e. late binding).
The only difference would be in who defined the schema notation. In one case the schema notation would be defined by the SPML 2.0 specification itself, and in the other the schema notation is defined by the XML Schema speciciation.
Jeff Bohren
Product Architect
OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc
Try the industry's only 100% .NET-enabled identity management software. Download your free copy of Universal IdP Standard Edition today. Go to www.opennetwork.com/eval.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Gearard Woods [mailto:gewoods@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 1:05 PM
To: Jeff Bohren
Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models?
I disagree that the two proposals look the same from the
point of view of the "late-binding" idea that I brought up. Perhaps I'm
not making it clear. What I'm saying is that, for example, the DSMLv2
schema is "bound" into SPML 1.0 by virtue of its being imported into the
schema. I'm suggesting that the SPML 1.0 not be "bound" into SPML 2.0 but
rather that the client can determine the schema language at runtime based
on providing them with adequate namespace information. The key is the
difference between this runtime behaviour and the inclusion of the
specifics of the schema language in the specification.
That the two
approaches can be made to be functionally the same is of course my
argument. There is, however, a big difference between the writing of a
specific schema language into the spec, and the ability to offer support
for it without such a tight coupling. As for two bindings, we could
certainly discuss it, but the SPML 1.0 is already defined and the schema
is already available, so it can be used as is in my opinion.
None
of the three reasons you propose negate this
argument.
Gerry
"Jeff Bohren"
<jbohren@opennetwork.com>
 |
03/02/2004 06:53 AM |
 To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models? |
There are good reasons why the SPML 1.0 schema language should be carried forward into the 2.0 specification:
1) This approach was approved by 15% of the OASIS members at the time (over 40 members)
2) It is being using by existing commercial software products
3) It explicitly supports the data model used by all LDAP directories, virtual directories, and meta-directories
Perhaps the best approach would be to define the SPML 2.0 spec in terms of a core protocol and two "profiles" or "bindings". One "profile" could define attribute/value data model and associated schema language and one could define the xsd data model. Implementors could decide whether to support one or both of the profiles and we could let the market decide which is better.
One point of clarification, the ONT SPML 2.0 Proposal also supports the notion of late binding as described below. Whether a specific SPML service uses the SPML 1.0 schema langauge, xsd, or a mixture of the two is returned in the schema response. In that sense there is little functional difference between the two proposals.
Jeff Bohren
Product Architect
OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc
Try the industry's only 100% .NET-enabled identity management software. Download your free copy of Universal IdP Standard Edition today. Go to www.opennetwork.com/eval.
- -----Original
Message-----
From: Gearard Woods [mailto:gewoods@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 1:14 AM
To: Darran Rolls
Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [provision] One or many data models?
I should clarify what my argument is here because
it really has less to do with supporting two data models than it
has to do with building the 1.0 schema language and data model
into the 2.0 spec. I am all in favour of allowing the transport of
SPML 1.0 schema and data within 2.0 messages. What I don't think
is a good idea is making it part of the spec. Once it becomes part
of the spec then any implementation will have to support it and it
will be perpetuated into all of the future work on the SPML. I
would prefer that the means to use the schema language and SPML
1.0 data within the 2.0 framework should be done as was suggested
in WS-Provisioning and as I demonstrated at the F2F, i.e. by
allowing clients to discover the schema language in use by
namespace, a "late-binding" approach if you will. This breaks the
tight coupling between the schema language and the spec, and
allows 2.0 to progress without having to carry the restrictions of
1.0 with it forever more.
Gerry
"Darran
Rolls" <Darran.Rolls@waveset.com>
 |
03/01/2004 09:17 PM |
 To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: [provision] One or many data models? |
As discussed, the committee has to decide on the data model for the 2.0 specification. On the one hand, as prototyped by Jeff Bohren at the last F2F meeting, we can devise a solution that keeps the 1.0 DSML data model by adding an extensible schema "root" that allowed for its coexistence with a new "XML Schema" data model. The "cost" of this model is increased complexity. On the other hand we can take a single data model solution as proposed by Gerry Woods at the F2F and base 2.0 on a pure XML Schema data model at the "expense" of 1.0/ 2.0 compatibility and backwards support for 1.0 in a 2.0 compliant service.
Please consider this issue and ask questions/state preferences now. I propose we hold a ballot on this issue around the next committee con-call 3/16/04.
Thanks
Darran