In XML Schema, IIRC, Minoccurs = 0 and no maxoccurs means 0 or 1.
(Maxoccurs = 1 implied) ( ResourceContent? Not ResourceContent*
-----Original Message-----
From: Prakash Yamuna [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:52 PM
To: Daniel Engovatov
Cc:
Subject: Re: [xacml-users] Reg. <ResourceContent>
Thanks for the response Daniel.
But I am even more confused b/w your usage of context and content:-(
My understanding is there is a single XACML context - no ambiguities
here.
I was trying to understand <ResourceContent>.
Even the schema seems highly tilted towards this being an xml
representation of a resource you can dump rather than have to fit into
attributes.
<xs:complexType name="ResourceType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="xacml-context:ResourceContent"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element ref="xacml-context:Attribute"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
It is interesting to see that I can have multiple <ResourceContent>
elements within <Resource> according to the schema - where as section
6.1 states:
"<Resource> [One to Many]
Specifies information about the resource or resources for which access
is being requested by listing a sequence of <Attribute> elements
associated with the resource. It MAY include a <ResourceContent>
element."
Seems to indicate there can only be a single <ResourceContent> element.
Best,
prakash
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:39:57 -0800, Daniel Engovatov
<> wrote:
> There is no such assumption. The idea is that when resource is an XML
> document, it can contain (maybe partially) the context. Context is
> notional. Even if it is a representation of a resource, it may include
> any attributes.
>
> Personally, I think AttribtueDesignators should not have a kind
either,
> as they have no other meaning other then to group attributes in the
> context to some traditional categories. Maybe I should suggest for
3.0
> to reconsider that and make attribute kind an extensible identifier
for
> association with arbitrary data sources.
>
> D;
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prakash Yamuna [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:33 PM
> To: Daniel Engovatov
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [xacml-users] Reg. <ResourceContent>
>
> Hmm - interesting...
>
> Section 6.4 states:
>
> "The <ResourceContent> element is a notional placeholder for the
> content of the resource. If an XACML policy references the contents
> of the resource by means of an <AttributeSelector> element, then the
> <ResourceContent> element MUST be included in the RequestContextPath
> string."
>
> The key phrase that struck me was - "notional placeholder for the
> content of the resource" - hence my assumption that <ResourceContent>
> can be used only for xml content representation of resources.
>
> prakash
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:16:22 -0800, Daniel Engovatov
> <> wrote:
> > It is explained partially in section 2.5, line 460 : you can have
> > subject attribute as part of this context.
> > One can include all that information within a single XML document if
> so
> > needed. No need for separate contents.
> >
> > Division of attributes into several kinds is purely for convenience.
> > They do not have any fundamental differences.
> >
> > There is really only one context, that contains all kind of
> attributes.
> > See section 3.2.
> >
> > Daniel;
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prakash Yamuna [mailto:]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:48 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: [xacml-users] Reg. <ResourceContent>
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone could provide insight on why the XACML
spec
> > supports <ResourceContent> but not <SubjectContent>,
<ActionContent>,
> > etc...
> >
> > thanks,
> > prakash
> >
> >
>
>
