wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] [CR315] - Producers SHOULD or MAY do userProfile name mapping
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:14:18 -0400
I don't see this as an interop issue
as it relates to making use of additional data and therefore relates to
interop in the same manner as extension elements.
I think we had quite a debate about
this in the v1 timeframe and came to the consensus that any such mapping
was going to require that someone either know or be able to guess that
two different user profile items had the same semantics. As such, we decided
to encourage both sides to support name mapping so that the knowledge could
be applied regardless of on which partner's end the knowledge existed.
The potential interop issue would be
if neither side made an effort to map their internal user profile items
to the spec defined set. The potential change I could see adding in this
area would be to add a requirement that such mappings be done.
Rich
Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>
05/04/05 02:28 PM
|
To
| wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp] [CR315] - Producers
SHOULD or MAY do userProfile name mapping |
|
Good point. However, there is room for interpretation
of "valid
reasons". We gain interop by treating SHOULD as a "MUST except
under
extraordinary circumstances", and encourage implementations to honor
SHOULD under normal circumstances.
For this change request, if a Producer treats SHOULD as a MAY and does
not do mapping, it would affect interop. Moreover, having two similar
conformance statements for both the Consumer and the Producer also
affects interop. Since both conformance statements use SHOULD, it is
unclear what the guidance is, and how interop can be achieved?
Regards,
Subbu
Rich Thompson wrote:
>
> Since this will be a debate over the application of conformance
> language, the following are the copied definitions from RFC2119:
>
> *SHOULD*: This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean
that there may
> exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular
> item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed
> before choosing a different course.
>
> *MAY*: This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that
an item is
> truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because
a
> particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
it
> enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
An
> implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
> prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does include
> the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the same
vein
> an implementation which does include a particular option MUST be
> prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not
> include the option (except, of course, for the feature the option
> provides.)
>
>
> Saying the Producer SHOULD map user profile names allows for Producers
> to choose not to support name mapping (a valid reason for some
> implementations would be the impact on the PortletDescription of POPs),
> but does require that people understand the implications of that choice
> (less likely to receive the data). Reducing this to "MAY"
does not
> require the Consumer to do the name mapping, though it does make it
> easier for Producer developers to blow by the statement.
>
> Note: There is a corresponding SHOULD relative to Consumers mapping
> custom user profile names.
>
> Rich
>
>
> *Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS*
>
> 05/04/05 01:32 PM
>
>
> To
> wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> [wsrp]
[CR315] - Producers SHOULD or MAY do userProfile name mapping
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Document: Specification 2.0 Draft
> Requested by: Subbu Allamaraju
> Section: 5.1.2 PortletDescription Type
> Page: 25
> Line: 17
> Old Text:
> Any use of additional userProfile items specified as available when
the
> Consumer registered SHOULD use the names the Consumer supplied.
>
> New Text:
> Any use of additional userProfile items specified as available when
the
> Consumer registered *MAY *use the names the Consumer supplied.
>
> Reasoning:
> The current text places the burden on the producer to do the mapping.
> Since this requires the producer to change the portlet description
after
> registration, producers will be required to maintain different portlet
> description for each portlet (even for POPs). The changed text
> would place less burden on producers. Producers can still do the
> mapping, but it should be completely optional (MAY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]