Well, I'll stick my neck out here for my first post since AX drives most of my interest in OpenID (aside from being an identity junkie in general).
As an implementor - there would be extremely positive benefits from having a base set of attributes defined and available @ schema.openid.net . I agree that the people most interested right now are the OpenID community & implementors and it makes sense (to me) for openid.net to offer something - even just as a 'getting started point'. The problem is, if we wait for something neutral / 3rd party, the waiting game could take forever - and get drawn up in debates on how to most properly define "First Name". To quote a member of this list, "simple and open wins". Let's keep it simple. The beauty of AX that we can declare attribute equivalence, as well as RPs are free to use "more proper" attributes long term. What we need now (from my point of view) is a base set that we can work against to build momentum behind AX (building on the momentum already behind OpenID). So, +1 for going ahead with schema.openid.net My $0.02CAD. On 4/9/07 1:58 PM, Johannes Ernst wrote: > Are you really proposing that we should redefine "First Name" again? > > Probably badly, as it has been done >>1 times before? (because previous > experience in, say, representing the name structure in non-western > societies, typically doesn't get reused when things get redefined?) > > My point, of course, is not about First Name. > > What about simply pointing to established definitions where they exist > and have some market traction, and only inventing new stuff where it > doesn't exist? > > On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:39, Brian Hernacki wrote: > >> >> The short answer is yes. >> >> The longer answer is that while in a perfect world we’d have some >> great common schema we could just use, I’m not aware of any today. I >> worry that attempting to navigate the existing schema efforts would >> introduce significant delay. Also, approaching compatibility with a >> well thought out “open id schema” would likely make any such >> discussion easier. Clearly, any schema effort should consider existing >> models of use, compatibility with similar common technologies (e.g. >> Cardspace) and support for future change. >> >> --brian >> >> >> >> On 4/9/07 10:01 AM, "Recordon, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >>> Hey Brian. >>> Just to clarify, I don't think there is disagreement that this should >>> be discussed here. Rather the question is if discussion should be >>> around creating a new schema on openid.net or rather looking at using >>> an exisiting one such as ldap.com that Mark posted about? Ie, >>> discussion location aside, do you believe the OpenID project should >>> be creating a new schema of its own? >> _______________________________________________ >> specs mailing list >> specs@openid.net <mailto:specs@openid.net> >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs -- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
