OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsrp] User Profile Items - Draft Proposal


I see different issues here besides the ones I descibed in the initial
thread.
1. I think we need type information for custom user profile items,
otherwise they won't be interoperable at all, and can't be mapped.
2. Even if we added the schema information (e.g. by extending the itemDesc
or inventing a UserProdileDesc), it doesn't say at which level of the user
prof items this extension would appear. This basically means, that they
would need to be at the top level.
3. Model description doesn't fit very well, however it fits somehow. The
contained propertydescription contains hint and label, no description, but
I think we could live with it. Capabilities do not really match here. So
the question why don't we create a new type ProfileItemDescription which
meats our requirements and reducing confusion?
This would mean have a ItemDescription + schema + qname.
4. I think on the transport level we can then safely transport them as
extensions (in this case they would be well-known).

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 
             07/13/2005 02:56          wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>    
             PM                                                         cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [wsrp] User Profile Items -     
                                       Draft Proposal                      
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Just to make sure that this thread is not lost, Rich and Mike - could
you include this topic on the list of open issues?

Regards,
Subbu

Rich Thompson wrote:

>
> I would agree that the connection between the semantics, carried by
> the element name, and the syntax, defined by its type, can be entirely
> carried within schema. I think the base question is whether to carry
> that connection using schema syntax or WSRP metadata syntax. Both can
> associate a QName with a type definition, but I think the effort
> required to construct/parse is different.
>
> Consider the case of 5 non-spec items of type NamedString:
> - Using schema syntax would have the WSRP metadata simply refer to the
> schema (either in-line or by a URI reference) and the schema would
> then contain 5 element definitions which connect the QName to the type
> definition (much as the extra xsd file now has a definition for
> "extra:doctype").
> - Using WSRP metadata syntax would require adding a type field in
> appropriate places (e.g. ItemDescription) and should allow for
> carrying schema definitions of such types to the partner.
>
> Personally neither of these connect the semantic and syntactic
> definitions more strongly than the other.
>
> Rich
>
>
> *"Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>*
>
> 06/01/05 09:09 AM
>
>
> To
>            Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "wsrp"
<wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
>            RE: [wsrp] User Profile Items - Draft Proposal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What I would avoid is a disassociation between fully qualified element
> name and the type as in the following idiom:
>
> <somenamespace:somecontainerelement
> type=ā€¯thisIsTheTypeTheElementNameDoesNotReallyMatterā€¯>value</
> somenamespace:somecontainerelement>
>
> Hence, I avoided all use of a type attribute in favor to making an
> item description describe the namespace. How about:
>
> ItemDescription
> [R] itemName string // item name (1.0) or unqualified name of XML
> element if namespace attribute is carried
> [O] Attribute itemNamespace // new for 2.0
> [O] LocalizedString description // 1.0
> [O] Extension extensions[] // a bit circular here!
>
> Matching itemNamespace against SchemaLocation.namespace to discover
> the schema for the item.
>
> Regards,
> Andre
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] *
> Sent:* 01 June 2005 12:55*
> To:* wsrp*
> Subject:* RE: [wsrp] User Profile Items - Draft Proposal
>
>
> Thinking out loud is definitely not a bad thing!
>
> I think there is value in having a centralized place that all non-spec
> defined types can be carried. This should support both in-line and
> referenced schemas. One still has the issue of connecting named items
> to type information (in worst case this should be doable at runtime),
> but at least half of the problem is dealt with in an overarching manner.
>
> On connecting named items to types, wouldn't adding an optional type
> field to ItemDescription be simpler than most other approaches (and
> backwards compatible to boot)?
>
> Rich
>
> *"Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>*
>
> 06/01/05 07:30 AM
>
>
> To
>            Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "wsrp"
<wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
>            RE: [wsrp] User Profile Items - Draft Proposal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thinking out loud:
>
> Then we should consider defining a new element SchemaDescription that
> can carry a namespace name for an extensions as well as a ModelTypes
> (an any) and / or a schemaLocation URI? This could be added at the
> ServiceDescription and the PortletDescription to provide type
> information on user profiles and any other extension? And
> customUserProfileItemDescriptions would just enumerate the namespaces
> used for profile related extensions.
>
> SchemaDescription
> [R] URI Namespace // match against custom*Items and extensions
> [O] ModelTypes ModelTypes
> [O] URI schemaLocation
>
> ModelDescription seems too property related. We may want to consider
> such schema description support for coordination too.
>
> Regards,
> Andre
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *
> From:* Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] *
> Sent:* 01 June 2005 12:00*
> To:* wsrp*
> Subject:* RE: [wsrp] User Profile Items - Draft Proposal
>
>
> I would agree that it is misleading to claim UserProfile is not
> extensible in v1 as extension points exist at every level in the
> hierarchy, including the base. What was accepted as an issue at the
> F2F is that there is no means to exchange type metadata about custom
> user profile items. I could see ModelDescription as a good candidate
> for how to exchange this information, but do not see a need to change
> the way such items are carried at runtime (i.e. as extension elements).
>
> Rich
>
> *"Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>*
>
> 06/01/05 04:09 AM
>
>
>
>
> To
>            "Subbu Allamaraju" <subbu@bea.com>, "wsrp"
<wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
>            RE: [wsrp] User Profile Items - Draft Proposal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's a bit miss leading to claim UserProfile elements can't be extended
> in 1.0. While I'm not opposed to using properties as a extension
> mechanism, I think the intent was to allow each of the UserProfile
> sub-elements to be extensible? E.g. EmployerInfo could carry standard
> codes for type-of-business in an extension element using some existing
> XML schema. Therefore, would it not be better to leave custom values to
> XML as an extension, at the appropriate level, relying on namespacing,
> rather than forcing a property model to be in use at the profile level?
>
> Regards,
> Andre
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Subbu Allamaraju [mailto:subbu@bea.com]
> Sent: 31 May 2005 20:46
> To: wsrp
> Subject: [wsrp] User Profile Items - Draft Proposal
>
> One of the action items at the last F2F was for Richard and me to
> propose a fix to the user profile related inconsistencies in the V1
> spec.
>
> I'm attaching a note on this for your review. Since Richard is out sick,
>
> I would appreciate if someone from IBM checks to see if it meets his
> concerns and use cases.
>
> Regards,
>
> Subbu
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]