7.0.1.0.2.20091223101951.02543d08@wheresmymailserver.com" type="cite">Ken, is there any NDR section where the profile concept is so constrained ?
...which is what I was uncomfortable with. The ID chosen for the extension is chosen for extension scaffolding reasons and not for signature business reasons. And it is optional and the user may not have need for an extension identifier. And because it is scaffolding and not business, it has no role being constrained in a profile. Profiles constrain the business objects, not the UBL scaffolding.
We are fine that the ID of an extension is just an ID without a business meaning, in fact we are trying to use ID as they are meant to be used, to identify other information (business information as well).
I try to show an example:
1. The user creates an extension using the ID he wants (with no business meaning).
2. The user put all ds.signature information inside the above extension
3. The user creates a cac:Signature in order to provide a valid reference to the signature information and methods
4. The user creates a cac:Signature/cbc:ID with the same value of the extension ID, as an Identifier for the signature, but also according a precise cac:Signature/cbc:SignatureMethod that the SecuritySC will issue to precisely identify any specific use of the cac:Signature
The SecuritySC do not provide any signature "profile" because this is already the scope of ETSI and outside UBL namespaces.
We are trying to provide a "guide" and "methods" to use eSignatures within UBL documents.
Adopters will be still free to use any signature methodology and profile, but they will be supported by at least 2-3 signature methods issued by UBL Security SC in order to ensure the interoperability required into main signature use cases.
The SignatureMethod will contain an URI issued by SecuritySC to identify for instance the "enveloped signature" case. At this point the use of the above IDs will be justified and regulated by this method.
The importance of some stable methods for applying signatures to UBL documents is relevant.
The business and signature meanings are still in the right places, we want just use IDs to reference these according a method.
--
JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino
| mobile: +39 328 2148123 | |
| skype: roberto.cisternino.ubl-itlsc | |
| [UBL Technical Committee] | http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl |
| [UBL Online Community] | http://ubl.xml.org |
| [UBL International Conferences] | http://www.ublconference.org |
| [UBL Italian Localization Subcommittee] | http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl-itlsc |
| [Iniziativa divulgativa UBL Italia] | http://www.ubl-italia.org |