Standard Schema

["Gary.P.Cole" <Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM>]

I'm sorry, but I'll need to miss at least one more SPML conference 
call.  (By now, you're quite accustomed to my absence, but I was looking 
forward to the meeting.)  Unfortunately, I'm traveling tomorrow and I'll 
be in the air at meeting time. Fortunately, however, I think we can use 
the list to take the next step or two. 

If people are willing to review the SIMPLEST Domain Model (see attached 
PDF), I'd very much appreciate comment. The first thing to discuss is 
the set of entities and relationships.  Assuming that we still agree in 
principle with the approach of defining a standard schema (that is, 
agree to specify both the syntax and the meaning of certain object 
classes and attributes, and to allow unrecognized attributes to pass 
through), then reaching agreement on an initial set of entities and 
relationships is the first step.  (Please try not to get hung up on the 
names.  Names are negotiable, and I'm open to any suggestion.  For 
instance, one of my colleagues points out that "AccountType" sounds like 
an XML type definition and suggests renaming this object class to 
"AccountTemplate".) 

Once we can agree on a set of entities and relationships, we'll be ready 
to take the next step.  I propose as a  next step to deliver a draft 
profile that: 1) specifies a set of object classes and attributes; and 
2) specifies how to use SPML with the proposed standard schema.  At that 
point, we can wrangle over the set of attributes, over syntax and 
semantics, and over the finer points of conformance.

Thanks,

Gary

SIMPLEST-domain-model.pdf