[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] [CR315] - Producers SHOULD or MAY do userProfile namemapping
Rich Thompson wrote: > > 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. That's right. This is what I was referring to when I commented about possible interop issues. One of the parties must do the mapping to get this to work, and I feel that we should have a stronger requirement on the consumer, and a weaker requirement on the producer for mapping. Subbu > > 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]