> From: dg-am-request@kantarainitiative.org
> Subject: DG-AM Digest, Vol 2, Issue 2
> To: dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:00:03 -0400
>
> Send DG-AM mailing list submissions to
> dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> dg-am-request@kantarainitiative.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> dg-am-owner@kantarainitiative.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of DG-AM digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Related on discovery - attribute schema mapping
> (Salvatore D'Agostino)
> 2. Re: Related on discovery - attribute schema mapping
> (Leif Johansson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:06:36 -0400
> From: "Salvatore D'Agostino" <sal@idmachines.com>
> Subject: Re: [DG-AM] Related on discovery - attribute schema mapping
> To: "'Joni Brennan'" <joni@ieee-isto.org>,
> <Dg-am@kantarainitiative.org>
> Message-ID: <047601cc82b7$f9c20590$ed4610b0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thanks Joni,
>
>
>
> I think the group intends to ask this question of itself. I tried to put
> this out there in the first call, that based on investigation we may find
> ourselves moving across covered ground in which case the question posed is
> valid.
>
>
>
> That is the reason we creating a parking space on the wiki for any existing
> schema, so if we are redundant put the evidence here.
>
>
>
> And that being said I think we also want to look beyond simply schemas and
> to trust/source and use in addition to the bi-lateral, multi-lateral and
> scale issues you rightfully raise.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Sal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org
> [mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Joni Brennan
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:35 AM
> To: Dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
> Subject: [DG-AM] Related on discovery - attribute schema mapping
>
>
>
> In the spirit of "something called for" I've heard grumblings regarding the
> desire (need?) for an org to take on comprehensive attribute schema mapping.
> I see from search that some of this appears to be happening at a bi-lateral
> level but perhaps not on a larger multi-lateral scale. Do AM-DG people/orgs
> have thoughts about this and could it be an interesting track to pursue?
>
> Best,
> =Joni
>
> --
> =Joni
>
> Joni Brennan
> IEEE-ISTO
> Kantara Initiative | Executive Director
> voice:+1 732-226-4223
> email: joni @ ieee-isto.org
> gtalk: jonibrennan
> skype: upon request
>
> Join the conversation on the community@ list -
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-am/attachments/20111004/9cfeb4b8/attachment-0001.html
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
> Size: 6113 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-am/attachments/20111004/9cfeb4b8/attachment-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:37:31 +0200
> From: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
> Subject: Re: [DG-AM] Related on discovery - attribute schema mapping
> To: dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
> Message-ID: <4E8B445B.6060300@mnt.se>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/04/2011 05:34 PM, Joni Brennan wrote:
> > In the spirit of "something called for" I've heard grumblings regarding
> > the desire (need?) for an org to take on comprehensive attribute schema
> > mapping. I see from search that some of this appears to be happening at
> > a bi-lateral level but perhaps not on a larger multi-lateral scale. Do
> > AM-DG people/orgs have thoughts about this and could it be an
> > interesting track to pursue?
> >
>
> Somewhat related I recently had a discussion about declaring required
> attribute profiles in relying party metadata.
>
> Deployment experience has shown that the currently supported model that
> allows an RP to express required and optional attributes in metadata
> doesn't allow enough wiggle-room to accommodate differences between
> semantically equivalent attributes that occur in the wild.
>
> For instance if an RP needs a humanly readable name for a person you
> can use any one of givenName+sn or cn or displayName. None of these
> three options is more "right" and all occur frequently.
>
> In an interfederation situation (your RP is a member of multiple
> federations) then the RP already needs to support all alternatives in
> code however there is no way to express support for these multiple
> options in metadata.
>
> I suggest we should investigate adding a layer-of-indirection whereby
> a RP would assert the need for the "humanly displayable name" attribute
> profile, possibly using an entity attribute.
>
> Cheers Leif
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk6LRFsACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZneSEACcDq2mHAUh5j9nL/tOb5+GKtmW
> nToAn0BrDCMvHT/mri0DQprXLnDOxBrP
> =ehfh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> DG-AM mailing list
> DG-AM@kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am
>
>
> End of DG-AM Digest, Vol 2, Issue 2
> ***********************************