On 9/18/09 6:56 AM, "Sergey Lyakhov" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Paul,
>  
>> > 1. I presume that you¹ve 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 not‹but 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 won¹t like it either,
> but we¹ll see. I¹ll 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:[email protected]>
>>  
>> To: Sergey Lyakhov <mailto:[email protected]>
>>  
>> Cc: Vadym Synakh <mailto:[email protected]>  ; Igor  Tsinman
>> <mailto:[email protected]>  ; higgins-dev
>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>  
>> 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:
>>  
>> 1. I presume that  you¹ve stayed entirely within the IMI specifications? It
>> seems that you  have. That was the intent.
>> 2. WRT your #16:  CDM does (in my mind) support polymorphism although I
>> realize that the IdAS  API does not‹but we can fix this when we remove the
>> Model APIs from IdAS
>> 3. WRT your #18: I  made these changes, thanks.
>> 4. WRT your #17: Do  you have ideas about how to represent these values?
>> 5. 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 I¹ll turn them into diagrams
>> and I¹ll  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" <[email protected]>  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.
>>> 
>>>  
>>>> 
> 

_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev

Reply via email to