<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Attribute Exchange 2.0</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Book Antiqua"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>We should define a mapping to a URL form so that the sorry things can be dereferenceable even though you’re quite right that they’ll be used in native URN form until the cows come home.<BR>
<BR>
Mapping becomes easier when we have a std way to associate metadata with the attribute URL. And that’s through dereferencing. Or at least that seems like one great way.<BR>
<BR>
As for location, it should be outside of OIDF because OIDF is a single-protocol place. It should be in the most neutral place we can think of. That’s why a bunch of us suggested Identity Commons. But if most folks wish to start up some new, neutral place that’s focused on this attribute/schema area, that’s fine too. I’d suggest Identity Commons. <BR>
<BR>
On 9/16/09 6:19 PM, "John Bradley" <<a href="john.bradley@wingaa.com">john.bradley@wingaa.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Book Antiqua"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>There are a lot of systems that use URN to reference LDAP stores etc.<BR>
<BR>
I don't thing that govenment and other communitys are going to change overnight.<BR>
<BR>
I also think that having derefrencable claims/attributes/assertions is a good thing.<BR>
<BR>
If we used common URL for them it would make life sooo much easier.<BR>
<BR>
If we had mappings between them it would improve things as well.<BR>
<BR>
If we could agree on a basic set for AX that would be wonderful. <BR>
<BR>
So one question is should the AX attribute URI be inside or outside the OIDF.<BR>
<BR>
If outside then where?<BR>
<BR>
John B.<BR>
<BR>
On 2009-09-16, at 6:08 PM, Paul Trevithick wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Book Antiqua"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>As Dick knows, I’ve been long saying we should find a common place for this. The ICF created its attribute/claim catalog and I already regret it to some extent. In its charter it said that the URIs would be dereferenceable to some common place—almost certainly not at the ICF, BTW. <BR>
<BR>
And unless Dick has changed his mind all must be URIs and all must be dereferenceable to metadata descriptions. Mark Wahl and I and others started identitychemas.org <<a href="http://identitychemas.org">http://identitychemas.org</a>> as one possible place (though we’ve not done anything with it for a couple of years). But if folks want it somewhere else, that’s fine with me. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 9/16/09 5:44 PM, "John Bradley" <<a href="john.bradley@wingaa.com">john.bradley@wingaa.com</a> <x-msg:<a href="//73/john.bradley@wingaa.com">//73/john.bradley@wingaa.com</a>> > wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Book Antiqua"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Good point. It would be nice to have one place to document schema.<BR>
<BR>
The ICF has a claims dictionary as well.<BR>
<BR>
If we could consolidate that would be an improvement.<BR>
<BR>
Do people have an opinion on trying to do something cross protocol.<BR>
<BR>
openID, Information Cards, and SAML or should we do something on our <BR>
own.<BR>
<BR>
John B.<BR>
On 2009-09-16, at 5:22 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> axschema.org <<a href="http://axschema.org">http://axschema.org</a>> is shorter then schemas.openid.net <<a href="http://schemas.openid.net">http://schemas.openid.net</a>> and implies the<BR>
> schemas could be used for things other then OpenID<BR>
><BR>
> given that though, I don't have a strong preference<BR>
><BR>
> On 2009-09-16, at 2:06 PM, John Bradley wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> As I recall the idea was to move the URI to use schemas.openid.net <<a href="http://schemas.openid.net">http://schemas.openid.net</a>> .<BR>
>><BR>
>> Is that still the preferred option from your point of view, or do<BR>
>> you see axshema.org <<a href="http://axshema.org">http://axshema.org</a>> continuing in some way?<BR>
>><BR>
>> John B.<BR>
>><BR>
>> On 2009-09-16, at 4:54 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>> On 2009-09-16, at 12:28 PM, John Bradley wrote:<BR>
>>><BR>
>>>> Dick,<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> That includes all of the schema work and AX 2.0 documents?<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> All the work that Sxip Identity did. I don't recall that anyone else<BR>
>>> contributed.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> Who controls axschema.org <<a href="http://axschema.org">http://axschema.org</a>> now?<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> I do personally<BR>
>>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
specs mailing list<BR>
<a href="specs@lists.openid.net">specs@lists.openid.net</a> <x-msg:<a href="//73/specs@lists.openid.net">//73/specs@lists.openid.net</a>> <BR>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs</a><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Book Antiqua"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>