<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Request for consideration of AX 2.0 Working Group Charter Proposal</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Book Antiqua"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Paul, <BR>
<BR>
Yes, ICF Schema WG did introduce a ‘verified’ “meta” claim. But it isn’t pretty. And it isn’t without problems as you pointed out. The approach was driven by sheer pragmatism. We had a card issuer who needed SOME way to express this semantic, the ICF Schema WG doesn’t play “beat cop,” and the solution had to work within the rather limiting “flat” structure of i-card claims. <BR>
<BR>
--PaulT<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 1/26/09 6:18 AM, "Paul Madsen" <<a href="paulmadsen@rogers.com">paulmadsen@rogers.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Book Antiqua"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>FWIW, the separate 'verified' field is the approach the Infocard community took <BR>
<BR>
<a href="https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog">https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog</a><BR>
<BR>
They also allow the particular verification method used to be listed<BR>
<BR>
<a href="https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog#Verification_Methods">https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog#Verification_Methods</a><BR>
<BR>
One drawback of this method is that all claims sent together get lumped together into a single bucket wrt verification<BR>
<BR>
paul<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Martin Atkins wrote: <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Book Antiqua"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Henrik Biering wrote: <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Book Antiqua"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Agree! <BR>
If the range of SReg attributes is expanded, however, I would suggest to add phone number (incl. quality as suggested for email) and possibly street+city address line(s). That would make it possible to fill in a somewhat larger part of typical registration forms. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Book Antiqua"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> <BR>
It might be good to apply the quality thing to all of the fields. <BR>
<BR>
One approach might be to add a "verified" argument that contains a list of names of fields that the OP has verified in some way. <BR>
<BR>
However, I think the SREG spec itself needs work done since the 1.1 draft (that was never published) has a bunch of problems. It might be better to do such work in a separate working group; I already have an updated 1.1 draft with some of the problems from the current 1.1 draft fixed that could potentially be used as a basis, though I'll need to dig it out since I'm not sure what I checked it in to. <BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________ <BR>
specs mailing list <BR>
<a href="specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a> <BR>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>