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"
<>
06/01/05 04:09 AM
To
"Subbu Allamaraju"
<>, "wsrp" <>
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:]
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
