wsrp-interfaces message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Custom user profile items
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:26:44 -0400
agreed.
I also think we refined Andre's question
to remove debate over how cleanly such schemas are supported by v1. I'm
not sure we quite came to agreement on the new form of the question, which
I would propose is:
Should user profile
schemas defined outside the TC be treated on equal footing as those defined
by the TC?
Rich
Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>
08/31/05 02:56 PM
|
To
| wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Custom user profile
items |
|
Thanks Rich. I agree that from a user profile perspective
the main question is Andre's:
"Should the protocol cleanly support user profile schemas
defined outside the TC?"
In addition I think that Richard's question leads us to a more generic
question that also needs to be answered:
"Should we provide v2 meta data to describe the use
and location of an extension?"
The two questions become related only if the answer to Andre's question
is no though I beleive it would be incorrect to say "yes" to
the first question merely because you think the answer to the second question
is "no".
-Mike-
Rich Thompson wrote:
In reflecting on this mornings call, I think Mike is right in that we have
not well enough defined the problem we are working on and this is complicating
discussing solutions. My summary of the problem statements I have heard
is:
Richard: The v1 metadata for custom user profiles items is insufficient
to locate and understand the items (i.e. reasonably support mapping).
Subbu: The v1 spec left where custom user profile items are placed ambiguous.
Andre: The protocol should cleanly support user profile schemas defined
outside the TC.
I think Subbu's problem statement is a narrowing of Richard's with a strong
indication of a preferred solution. I think Andre's statement is the broadest
of the three proposed problem statements. If we can settle on which one(s)
of these, if any, we are willing to accept as problems, it should help
scope the discussion/solution in a productive manner.
Rich
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]