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 <>*
>
> 05/04/05 02:28 PM
>
>
> To
>
> 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
> >
> > 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
>
>
