Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Custom user profile items

[Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>]

> 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?

Why treat user profile schemas defined outside the TC any different from 
other schemas defined outside the TC? So, this question has broader 
implications.

Subbu


> *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
>