[provision] Attribute Grouping Was: One or many data models?

["Sandy Walsh" <sandy.walsh@abridean.com>]

Good question Jeff.

I know for the xs:complex definition you can specify an xs:group for the
classifications of elements, so that should work (think of it as a class
with a series of inner-struct's).

However, the real challenge, and one that applies to a flat set of
attributes as well as grouped attributes, is the ordering of the attributes.
How to specify that the presentation order should be First Name, Middle
Initial and Last Name, as opposed to the order in which the attributes were
parsed. Also, since XML-Schema is very deterministic, you can specify the
<attribute> requirement, but not so much 'permit<attribute id="foo"> but not
<attribute id="blah"> '

So, yeah, it may have to live outside of the raw schema definition. Unless
one of the other schema definitions is more liberal.

-Sandy


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Bohren [mailto:jbohren@opennetwork.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 12:16 PM
To: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models?


Sandy,

The attribute grouping idea sounds very interesting. Along the same
lines the schema could provide locale specific attribute names as well.
Would you see that as useful?

If this was added to SPML 2.0, wouldn't that necessitate the need for a
custom schema notation? XSD could be used to define the data, but I'm
not sure if it could feasibly be used to provide presentation
information.

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: Sandy Walsh [mailto:sandy.walsh@abridean.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:58 AM
To: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models?


Hey all!

Good discussion! I've finally come up for air from our last release to
start getting involved :-) hi!

While there are good arguments being presented for keeping the SPML 1.0
schema in 2.0, we have to ask ourselves if we want to carry this baggage
forward forever. I agree with the general sentiment of dropping the 1.0
schema data.

Schema is a well-solved problem via XML-Schema (and others) and, as a
group, we should be focused on provisioning use-cases and not yet
another schema language. For that reason, I think that XML-Schema (or
some pluggable definition) should be our strategy going forward. If you
look at the bulk of the SPML 1.0 specification, more than 50% of it is
related to schema definition. By refactoring this out of the spec, SPML
would become much lighter and therefore gain greater acceptance by being
easier to adopt. 

As a side note, there are other schema-related issues we should consider
*around* provisioning such as attribute grouping. Attribute grouping
would provide hints to the presentation layer on how to organize
attributes. So, if you have hundreds of attributes that may be available
in the presentation layer, the schema can provide hints as to how to
logically group them. Personally, I'd be more interested in seeing that
in the SPML spec. 

Just a couple of thoughts. 

Cheers!

Sandy Walsh
Abridean, Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: Darran Rolls [mailto:Darran.Rolls@waveset.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 1:18 AM
To: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
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


--
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 7.0.225 / Virus Database: 262.1.3 - Release Date: 3/3/2004

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/provision/members/leave_workgro
up.php.

-- 
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 7.0.225 / Virus Database: 262.1.3 - Release Date: 3/3/2004

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>