Re: [security-services] Decision on further steps for Metadata documentation

["Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

On 7/23/13 9:32 AM, "Rainer Hoerbe" <rainer@hoerbe.at> wrote:

>Second, a significantly reduced description from March 2013. It describes
>just the entities, but not attributes, relationships or in which
>document/schema an entity is specified:
>http://files.hoerbe.at/daunlod/eadocx-quickdoc.pdf

I think my comment at the time was that a lot of the extra material being
proposed was probably suitable for inclusion in a revision of the metadata
spec itself. As long as it's not overly long, and most of that isn't,
having more background on practice isn't a bad thing IMHO.

> 
>These drafts are not mutually exclusive, for example a further reduced
>UML diagram could be added to the second document to provide a more
>visual overview to those who prefer this kind of notation.

Yes. I think a little goes farther.

>For further steps a few points should be decided in the SSTC:
>- Is the technical overview the right place to insert this documentation?

See above. It might be expedient for now, but I think actually adding to
the spec is ultimately more useful.

>As a side note: Is there a pressing reason to have the Entity Category
>spec (draft-macedir-entity-category-00) at the IETF? For achieving a
>consolidated picture of MD an OASIS document might be easier to manage.

Well, everybody has their favored venues, and that had something to do
with it. But I'm not sure the spec really fits at either place all that
well.

Don't confuse that with the underlying spec for entity attributes (just in
case that isn't clear), which was done here, by me, and is at CS as it has
been for years.

-- Scott