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"
<>
06/01/05 07:30 AM
To
Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
"wsrp" <>
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:]
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"
<>
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
