<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">It is probably worth running this by the OIDF board to see how they feel about it.<div><br></div><div>John B.<br><div><div>On 2009-09-16, at 6:29 PM, Paul Trevithick wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<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="x-msg://89/john.bradley@wingaa.com">john.bradley@wingaa.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font><blockquote type="cite"><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 type="cite"><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 <a href="http://identitychemas.org">identitychemas.org</a> <<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="x-msg://89/john.bradley@wingaa.com">john.bradley@wingaa.com</a> <x-msg:<a href="x-msg://73/john.bradley@wingaa.com">//73/john.bradley@wingaa.com</a>> > wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font><blockquote type="cite"><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>
> <a href="http://axschema.org">axschema.org</a> <<a href="http://axschema.org/">http://axschema.org</a>> is shorter then <a href="http://schemas.openid.net">schemas.openid.net</a> <<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 <a href="http://schemas.openid.net">schemas.openid.net</a> <<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 <a href="http://axshema.org">axshema.org</a> <<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 <a href="http://axschema.org">axschema.org</a> <<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="x-msg://89/specs@lists.openid.net">specs@lists.openid.net</a> <x-msg:<a href="x-msg://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>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>