Paul,
>> Actually,
Model API could correctly treat a polymorphism in a schema. Are you going to
replace it with a model proposed by
>> Jim a
year ago (I and Valery think it is not convenient to use it) or plain just to
use owl schema instead of Model API?
> ## I have yet another idea up
my sleeve. Valery probably wont like it either, but well see. Ill let you
know within 1 week.
Thanks, Sergey Lyakhov
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 6:27
PM
Subject: Re: Improved i-card.owl checked
in
On 9/18/09 6:56 AM, "Sergey Lyakhov"
<slyakhov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Paul,
> 1. I presume
that youve stayed entirely within the IMI specifications? It seems that you
have. That was the intent. I used MS CardSpace 1.5 doc and
infocard xml schema http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity.
I reviewed IMI 1.0 specification, and did not find any difference. However I
found out that ic07IssuerInformation element has a predefined data
structure, and should not be a string. As a result, I've added
IssuerInformationEntry class, entryName and entryValue datatype properties,
replased ic07IssuerInformation with the same object property. Also I fixed
some my previous errors. I attached updated i-card.owl schema.
##
Great. Thanks. > 2. WRT your #16: CDM does (in my mind)
support polymorphism although I realize that the IdAS API does notbut we
can fix this when we remove the Model APIs from IdAS Actually,
Model API could correctly treat a polymorphism in a schema. Are you going to
replace it with a model proposed by Jim a year ago (I and Valery think it is
not convenient to use it) or plain just to use owl schema instead of Model
API?
## I have yet another idea up my sleeve. Valery probably wont
like it either, but well see. Ill let you know within 1
week. > 4. WRT your #17: Do you have ideas about how to represent
these values? I see the following cases: 1. Store claim
values in separate Entity. In this case transaction problems possible if
entities are stored in different contexts. 2. Store values as a complex
attribute value(s) : 2.1. P-Card has a single-valied attribute with
"Claims" value. All attributes of this value has attrID == claim type.
In this case claim values are predefined in schema. 2.2. P-Card has
a multy-valied attribute with "Claim" values. These values, in turn, have
two attributes: claimType and claimValue. In this case we can use the same
schema for different sets of claims. ## Before I respond to
your proposal, I want to see if we first agree on something else. In CDM 1.1
attributes can have either (a) literal value(s) or (b) complex value(s). If
(b) the value IS an entity. Do you agree with
that? > 5. Would you be willing to create an i-card-instance.owl
file that contains an example p-card and an example m-card? I
attached icardinstances.owl with those example cards. This ontology imports
claimTypes.owl where claim type instances are defined.
## Wonderful,
thank you. Thanks, Sergey Lyakhov
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevithick <mailto:ptrevithick@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Sergey Lyakhov <mailto:slyakhov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Vadym Synakh <mailto:synakh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
; Igor Tsinman <mailto:itsinman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
; higgins-dev <mailto:higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:47
AM Subject: Improved i-card.owl checked
in
Sergey,
This is a giant improvement,
thank you. I have checked it in here [1].
Questions for
you:
- I presume
that youve stayed entirely within the IMI specifications? It
seems that you have. That was the intent.
- WRT your
#16: CDM does (in my mind) support polymorphism although I realize
that the IdAS API does notbut we can fix this when we remove the
Model APIs from IdAS
- WRT your
#18: I made these changes, thanks.
- WRT your
#17: Do you have ideas about how to represent these values?
- Would you be
willing to create an i-card-instance.owl file that contains an
example p-card and an example m-card? If so Ill turn them into
diagrams and Ill use them to replace the overly simplistic
diagrams here [2]. I think that will help folks understand this
sub-part of PDM 1.1 (i.e. The i-card.owl part) much better.
--Paul
[1] https://dev.eclipse.org/svnroot/technology/org.eclipse.higgins/trunk/ontology/org.eclipse.higgins.ontology/i-card.owl [2]
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Persona_Data_Model_1.1#I-Cards
On
9/15/09 2:58 PM, "Sergey Lyakhov" <slyakhov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Paul, I made the following changes to
attached i-card.owl: 1. I-Card should be able to
contain extensions (in xml form). 2. ClaimType should also have
the following datatype properties : claimTypeName,
claimTypeDescription. 3. supportedClaimType should be object
property with ClaimType range. 4. I-Card should have
supportedTokenType datatype property. 5. pinDigest should have
I-Card as a range (now CardSpace supports it for both m- and
p-card, we did not yet implement it for m-card). 6. cardName
property missed for I-Card. 7. cardVersion property missed for
I-Card. 8. masterKey property missed for I-Card. 9. langId
property missed for I-Card. 10. issuer property missed for
I-Card. 11. stsPrivacyPolicyVersion missed for M-Card. 12.
M-Card should have tokenService object property with TokenService
range. 13. TokenService should have endpointReference object
property with EndpointReference range. 14. EndpointReference
should have address, metadataAddress and certificate
properties. 15. TokenService should have userCredential object
property with UserCredential range (also, there is
CredentialDescriptor class defined in i-card.owl which duplicates
UserCredential). 16. UserCredential should be able to contain
all forth credential type descriptors. I added them as extended
classes of UserCredential, but not sure it is correct. Does CDM
support polymorphism? Also the following changes need
to be done: 17. P-card needs claim values. 18.
strongRecipientdentityRequired - the label contains "require
aplies to", but this is not quite correct. It meaning is RP should
provide a cryptographically protected identity, for example, an
X.509v3 certificate. Also "I" is missed in the name of this
property, moreover, in CardSpace docs it is named as
RequireStrongRecipientIdentity.
|