*Attendees*
Lynn McRae, Stanford U. (chair)
Dave Donnelly, Stanford U.
Jeff Van Eeuwen, U. Chicago/SNtial Technologies
Gil Singer, SNtial Technologies
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
Jessica Bibbee, Internet2 (scribe)
Carry Over *Action Items*
[AI] {Lynn} will follow up with {Michael} regarding how much history should be kept, and just how it is kept. (3-Aug-07)
[AI] {Dave} will add LDAP config samples in the wiki for sources.xml file. (3-Aug-07)
[AI] {Lynn} will share an updated version of use cases for Hooks. (25-May-07)
[AI] {Tom} volunteered a role in vetting Signet with Grouper to have a common JVM. (25-May-07)
*Agenda*
1. Upcoming I2 Member meeting
2. Continued discussion of XML work in progress. Dave has an underlying XML strategy coded, one that can spill out or take in (if appropriate) any of the primary Signet objects -- subsystem, tree, assignment, proxy-assignment, permissions, signet-subject. Attached is a sample XML of a "raw" assignment object from which one could, in principle, produce more functional views. For instance, this sample includes far more about the embedded subjects (the grantor, grantee) than is needed in the context of an assignment.
Dave will have a diagram illustrating the components and layers of this work. We'll include in our discussion the question of Signet core vs. utilities and application layers vs plugin/adaptors (vs. I2MI Commons). He also has a proposed command structure on how this XML functionality will be exercised.
*Discussion*
-Upcoming I2 Member meeting-
The Fall 2007 Internet2 Member Meeting will be held on October 8-11 in San Diego, California. All are invited to join the Signet and Grouper Working Group for their combined meeting on Monday morning, 8-Oct. For more details, see < http://events.internet2.edu/2007/fall-mm/sessionDetails.cfm?session=3471&event=273 >.
-Continued discussion of XML work in progress-
The Group discussed the technical details relating to XML work, including the sample XML, architecture diagram, and command tree.
{Lynn} described his understanding of the XML as that it represents the architecture ability to reveal all that it knows about the schema, ending up with an XML representation of what is in the object. There is a need to build XML output from any source. Given a Signet object, it is possible to tailor objects from the adapter layer and binder layer to produce whatever is needed.
What is presented in Dave’s first cut of XML is a subject reference, not a subject definition. It is a subset of what the full-blown subject contains, and can be pared down to less, if desired. In the architecture on the UML side can be tailored to look as you want in XML. In other words, beyond source and ID, it is not necessary to include other items such as category, etc. It should contain a minimum set of values and no more. Please refer to Dave’s email from 14-Sep, < https://mail.internet2.edu/wws/arc/signet-dev/2007-09/msg00003.html > and the sample XML < https://wiki.internet2.edu/confluence/display/SignetWG/WG+2007.09.14+Sample+XML >.
{Jeff} asked if one could create separate subject assignments to include that information for export. The Group discussed why this would be desired and if it offered any benefits. However, given the need, it would be technically possible to do so, from the standpoint of an XML document.
{Dave} has been working with {Jeff and Gil} to ensure they do not need to worry about the Signet-based details when they prepare output according to their needs.
{Dave} also reviewed in detail the UML diagrams that he shared with the list in his 14-Sep thread. Questions should be directed to him; he will provide updates to the diagrams as they become available.
The next Signet Working Group call will be on Friday, September 28, 2007 at 11am EDT.