PROPOSAL schema.openid.net for AX (and other extensions)

[Dick Hardt]

The work is not rooted in openid.net. We are starting there. We can  
easily point those definitions somewhere else later, but we need  
somewhere to start.

Given that the community that cares today is in OpenID, and the  
domain the community has is openid.net, it would make sense to use  
that domain. A different domain is going to have the same issues of  
control. I would expect that other members of the community would  
have concerns if it was rooted at say sxip.org.

Happy to have further discussions at IIW, but don't see why the work  
here should wait until then. Other communities may or may not want to  
take advantage of what we are doing, and it will be easier for them  
to understand what we have if we have working code then just more  
talk about it.

To take a step back, the people to decide this should be the people  
that are doing implementations. Would you clarify David if *you* are  
implementing, or just sharing your opinion?

If anyone implementing would like to do something different, then I'd  
welcome additional discussion, otherwise I think we should be able to  
move forward with the proposal.

-- Dick

On 6-Apr-07, at 2:03 PM, Recordon, David wrote:

> I think it is great that there is new and innovative work in what  
> you've
> been doing.  I would also think that it would benefit the entire
> user-centric (and even non-user-centric) community to take  
> advantage of
> this work regardless of the technology.  By having it rooted on
> openid.net, I think there will be aversion to doing so and other
> communities will rather jump to the conclusion that the OpenID  
> community
> is yet again reinventing the wheel by defining common core attributes.
> This is what I want to avoid.
>
> By doing this in a neutral location, not tied to a specific identity
> technology, it removes this concern as well as does more good for the
> entire ecosystem.  If the ID Schemas project is not the right place to
> do it, then I see no reason not to create one; I would be happy to  
> front
> the cost of a domain name if needed.
>
> I'd also think this would be something worth discussing at IIW when  
> the
> entire community comes together.  I would really like to see this be
> something that can be used by OpenID, CardSpace, Higgins, SAML, etc.
>
> --David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick at sxip.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:07 PM
> To: Recordon, David
> Cc: OpenID specs list; Paul Trevithick; Mark Wahl
> Subject: Re: PROPOSAL schema.openid.net for AX (and other extensions)
>
> If there was something out there already, I would propose we used it.
> There is not.
>
> Just like the SAML crowd has accused the OpenID crowd of  
> reinventing an
> identity protocol (AKA reinventing the wheel) -- the AX proposal has
> some unique concepts that people like Paul and Mark think are quite
> innovative. Other schemas don't support them.
>
> I have cc'ed Paul and Mark in case they can point to some new work  
> that
> we can take advantage of today.
>
> Other responses inserted:
>
> On 6-Apr-07, at 11:49 AM, Recordon, David wrote:
>
>> As I've stated in the past, I have no problem with using
>> schema.openid.net to define attributes such as the authoritative URI
>> for an OpenID URL, i-name, etc.
>>
>> I do have a problem with using this namespace to define an attribute
>> such as a First Name.  I do not feel that this community should be
>> dealing with all of the issues such as First Name vs. Given Name, as
>> that is not where the expertise is, let alone it has been done in the
>> past.  I also strongly believe that due to the number of other
>> definitions of these attributes, either we as a community should
>> decide to use one of them or work with a project such as ID  
>> Schemas to
>
>> create a set of URIs not tied to the OpenID project that solves both
>> our needs and the needs of others.  I do not particularly care where
>> this work would happen and as I've said in the past, I'd be fine with
>> someone just buying a domain to do the work to preserve the speed for
>> getting this bootstrapped while not tying it to OpenID.
>
> If really don't care, then you should not care if it is happening in
> OpenID then.
>
>>
>> First Name:
>>  - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims/givenname
>
> This URL could be used. To date they have not made these self
> describing. Who knows what this is? The AX proposal is to make the
> URLs describing. This makes it easier for programmers to know what it
> is they are working with.
>
>>  - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/firstName
>>  - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/givenname
>
> Both of these are elements in a larger XML document. This is not the
> model of AX.
>
>>  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_name
>
> While intriguing to have wikiality define terms, this is not
> practical since the definition needs to be static or code will break
>
>>
>> I'm sure if Paul Trevithick or Mark Whal join this conversation  
>> they'd
>> be able to highlight even more URI definitions of a First Name than I
>> was in a cursory search.  This also isn't including all of the work
>> done
>> for things such as LDAP, vCard, or others listed at
>> http://idschemas.idcommons.net/moin.cgi/List_Of_Schemas in defining
>> what
>> these schema attributes are and mean.
>
> Most other work has created closed schemas. The AX proposal is an
> open schema where anyone can define a new attribute and each one is
> self describing.
>
>>
>> If we want to create URLs for attributes from an existing schema  
>> (such
>> as LDAP or vCard) since easy URLs do not currently exist, then  
>> that is
>> one thing.  Creating an entirely new definition of commonly used
>> attributes IMHO is unacceptable.
>
> People keep doing it for a variety of reasons. People keep inventing
> new programming languages.
>
>
>>   We should be reusing anything that we
>> can, not inventing something new especially given the complexity of
>> this
>> particular task.
>
> The task has largely been done. Still need to finalize the meta-data
> file format.
>
>>
>> I'm not sure what more I can do to urge this community to not  
>> reinvent
>> the wheel in this area.
>
> See comment at top. AX does not need a wheel. AX needs a wing. Wings
> don't exist right now.
>
> -- Dick
>
>
>
>
>