Re: [wsrp-interfaces] user profile proposal

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

I agree that the spec defines additional
semantics for both events and properties even those these also use an open
content model. 

I don't see anything in any of the user
profile proposals that defines additional semantics for extended user profile
items. Rather all the proposals appear to simply carry these in different
manners and I see no value in doing that. I could be missing additional
semantics the spec would define and, if that is the case, would seriously
like to be enlightened.

Rich

Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>

08/31/05 09:19 AM

To	wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	Re: [wsrp-interfaces] user profile proposal

If I understand your argument correctly, your key
reason for treating 
these the same is that both use an open content model at the XML level.
The moment we treat a spec defined user profile item and an extension 
the same way, we can apply the same argument at several other places, 
leading a to very weak schema and spec. For example, why not carry 
portlet properties or events as extensions? Or why not carry export data
as an extension?

We don't want that since an event is an event, a property is a property,
and an extensions is ... what? We don't know what it is, expect that it
has an open content model. They are for spec-users to specify 
(semantically).

Not attempting to be enlightening ...

Subbu

Rich Thompson wrote:
> 
> As this discussion has been proceeding, I am becoming more convinced
> that we are trying to draw an artificial distinction between custom
user 
> profile items and extensions. In v1, we put a minor hook for describing
> extensions related to the user profile because we expected these to
be 
> common, but the further we move from that original model, the more
this 
> looks artificial to me.
> 
> Can someone clearly articulate a _concrete_ difference between a 
> Consumer supplying an extended user profile item that provides the
> address where a vehicle is garaged and a Consumer supplying an extended
> client data item that provides information about the user's device???
> 
> What I see:
>  - In both cases, the protocol provides a defined extensibility
point 
> (using an open content model) for carrying the extended information
> (regardless of which proposal one is preferring)
>  - In both cases, the only semantics the protocol defines is
that the 
> extended information is related to the type which carries it (section
> 5.1.1 and equivalent in the various user profile proposals)
>  - In both cases, the Consumer needs to supply identity, syntactic
and 
> semantic information to the Producer in order for the information
to be 
> useful.
>  - In both cases, these points combine to produce the warning
the spec 
> includes in 5.1.1 that such items are less interoperable than 
> spec-defined items.
> 
> What I don't see are differences from a protocol perspective!
> I look forward to being enlightened ...
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> *Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>*
> 
> 08/30/05 08:07 PM
> 
>                  
> To
>                  wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
>                  
> Subject
>                  Re:
[wsrp-interfaces] user profile proposal
> 
> 
>                  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  > On your answer to extensions vs. things we define in the
protocol:  I am
>  > happy to remove the [relatively] useless
>  > customUsiptioerProfileItemDescriptions from serviceDescrn
and
>  > customUserProfileData field from registrastionData so that
its clear
>  > that this is no different then any other extension that
could be
>  > supported.
> 
> But isn't the whole debate about making custom profile items more
useful
> than they are currently.
> 
> Subbu
> 
> 
>  >     -Mike-
>  >
>  > Andre Kramer wrote:
>  >
>  >> Just to answer Mike’s questions: Yes, I propose to
allow multiple
>  >> kinds of profiles. One use case would be allowing the
common 1.0 P3P
>  >> derived values to be transmitted along with a more
sophisticated
>  >> encoding of additional user data.
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> I would agree the XML schema is superficially similar
but note that no
>  >> <extensions> tag need be used in order to allow
the two communicating
>  >> parties to exchange profile elements! And that is how
it should be for
>  >> all explicit extension points we define in the protocol,
in my opinion.
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> Regards,
>  >>
>  >> Andre
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>
>  >> *From:* Michael Freedman [mailto:michael.freedman@oracle.com]
>  >> *Sent:* 24 August 2005 18:43
>  >> *To:* wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
>  >> *Subject:* Re: [wsrp-interfaces] user profile proposal
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> Why did you define this so the producer can receive
multiple
>  >> profiles?  What is the use case for this?  Where
do we expect
>  >> consumers to manage/construct more then one?
>  >>
>  >> Also, I find it interesting that in the end you have
turned user
>  >> profiles into an extension.  i.e. they have the
same form.  To me this
>  >> is a step backwards -- and instead I would prefer to
continue to carry
>  >> the P3P style user profile formally in the UserContext
as we did in
>  >> 1.0 to reflect the fact that this is the preferred/protocol
profile
>  >> and then tell consumers/producers that decide to use
a different
>  >> profile to merely carry that profile in the extensions
field. This is
>  >> especially true given your strong preference not to
attempt to provide
>  >> more meta data in the protocol related to user profiles
>  >>     -Mike-
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Andre Kramer wrote:
>  >>
>  >> The following should allow alternative types of profile
data to flow,
>  >> making our old P3P based information one example of
such profile
>  >> descriptions:
>  >>
>  >> In 1.0 we had:
>  >>
>  >> <complexType name="*UserContext*">
>  >>
>  >>    <sequence>
>  >>
>  >>         <element name="*userContextKey*"
type="*xsd:string*" />
>  >>
>  >>         <element name="*userCategories*"
type="*xsd:string*"
>  >> minOccurs="*0*" maxOccurs="*unbounded*"
/>
>  >>
>  >>         <element name="*profile*"
type="*types:UserProfile*"
>  >> minOccurs="*0*" />
>  >>
>  >>         <element name="*extensions*"
type="*types:Extension*"
>  >> minOccurs="*0*" maxOccurs="*unbounded*"
/>
>  >>
>  >>    </sequence>
>  >>
>  >> </complexType>
>  >>
>  >> <element name="*UserContext*" type="*types:UserContext*"
/>
>  >>
>  >> /Proposal/: Replace "*profile*" element in
above with a "*profiles*"
>  >> element (note different type and that mulitple occurances
are now
>  >> allowed):
>  >>
>  >> <element name="*profiles*" type="*types:Profile*"
minOccurs="*0*"
>  >> maxOccurs="*unbounded*" />
>  >>
>  >> Where the new* Profile* type is defined as follows:
>  >>
>  >> <complexType name="*Profile*">
>  >>
>  >>    <sequence>
>  >>
>  >>         <any />
>  >>
>  >>    </sequence>
>  >>
>  >> </complexType>
>  >>
>  >> We would also define a global  "*userProfile*"
element, as well as
>  >> keep the (P3P)* UserProfile* type in our schema (could
move
>  >> UserProfile to separate useful types xsd):
>  >>
>  >> <element name="*userProfile*" type="*types:UserProfile*"/>
>  >>
>  >> This allows 0, 1 or many profiles to be communicated
in the user
>  >> context in <profiles> elements. The understanding
is that all such
>  >> profiles relate to the user. A specific usage is to
communicate the
>  >> 1.0* UserProfile* data. This would now be carried in
an element named
>  >> "*profiles*" :
>  >>
>  >> <userContext>
>  >>
>  >>    ...
>  >>
>  >>    <profiles>
>  >>
>  >>         <userProfile> …
1.0 P3P stuff  ...</userProfile> <!-- note 
>  >> that userProfile element is NOT required to be here
but some XML is. -->
>  >>
>  >>    </profiles>
>  >>
>  >>    …
>  >>
>  >>    <extensions> … </extensions>
...
>  >>
>  >> </userContext>
>  >>
>  >> Possible types of profiles can be listed using
>  >> ServiceDescription.customUserProfileItemDescriptions
and
>  >> RegistrationData.customUserProfileData. On reflection,
I strongly
>  >> prefer not to attempt to provide more meta data in
the protocol
>  >> related to user profiles. If a XML processor recognizes
the namespaced
>  >> elements it will already have the schema (if defined).
>  >>
>  >> Regards,
>  >>
>  >> Andre
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >
> 
>