On Feb 19, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Erik Rissanen wrote:
> All,
>
> I've been in a rush today, so I haven't followed every detail in
> the discussion, but basically, here is how it appears to me:
>
> * The profile, as it stands today, does specify the limited URI
> scheme which Rich describes. It says in section 2.2 that:
>
> --8<--
> The <pathname> portion of the URI SHALL be of the form
>
> <root name> [ “/” <node name> ]*
>
> The sequence of <root name> and <node name> values SHALL correspond
> to the individual hierarchical component names of ancestors of the
> represented node along the path from a <root> node to the
> represented node.
> --8<--
>
> So it in fact says that the identifiers must consists of paths with
> the names of the ancestors.
>
> * If I understand Daniel correctly, he says that each node should
> be allowed to have a name which is entirely independent of the
> other nodes in the hierarchy. Relations between the nodes are
> maintained in a manner not specified by XACML and are expressed in
> XACML Requests and policies in the form of the attributes resource-
> parent, resource-ancestor, etc. I think that the more general
> approach advocated by Daniel would be the correct way to go, so I
> agree with him (and Seth I believe. :-))
>
Yes, in fact the URI identifiers are not needed at all. Any opaque
unique string will work just as well. UUID works fine.
> * I also think as suggested on the XACML comments/users list that
> the data type of the node identifier should not be limited to URIs
> only.
>
It does not hurt to have a recommended form of UUID. They just do
not need to imply any hierarhy, as this is too restrictive.
> But I would prefer to leave major changes to the hierarchical
> profile out of the first batch of CD documents.
Daniel;
