[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp-interfaces] user profile proposal
Right, this was the initial intent.
It seems that we now do not agree on this?
Therfore we should clearly answer this question first:
Do we want to support interoprable custom profile exchange (and thus
mapping of different profile sets)?
If the answer is yes, we should continue and try to fix the leaks we
identified.
If the answer is no, I tend to agree that the current
customUserProfileItemDesc is close to useless.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,
Richard Jacob
______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
WSRP Team Lead & Technical Lead
WSRP Standardization
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com
Subbu Allamaraju
<subbu@bea.com>
To
08/31/2005 02:07 wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.or
AM g
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
>>
>>
>>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]