From: Gearard Woods [mailto:gewoods@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 5:29 PM
To: Jeff Bohren
Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models?
Jeff,
You're missing my point, or perhaps you're just ignoring my point.
It might help to review the approach used in the schema-related aspects of the
WS-Provisioning document to see what I mean. It is probably not worth
repeating again, but against my better judgement I will say this:
WS-Provisioning does not require that target schema be defined using XML
Schema. The actual schema language used by the target is not codified into the
specification, as it obviously is in the ONT proposal. There is a simple, but
nonetheless profound, and apparently confusing, difference here.
Gerry
"Jeff Bohren"
<jbohren@opennetwork.com>
 |
03/02/2004 01:05 PM |
 To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models? |
In one method an spml:schema element is returned and in another an xsd:schema element is returned. The fact that the spml:schema element is defined in the spml specification and the xsd:schema is defined in the XML Schema specification does not make any functional difference. They are both standard schema notations.
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 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