[xmlspif] Re: Grouping 'like' categories using the name attribute in securityCategoryTagSet
- From: "Alan Ross (SMHS)" <alan.ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: xmlspif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:44:52 +0100
I certainly dont like the idea of having a securityCategoryTagSet name that
is not unique, yet the id is. Therefore, having a groupName is a move in the
right direction.
I do like the idea of there being a grouping capability for improved
rendered views at a UI. I could see this also being extended into the
tagCategory as well. However, i am not convinced this is something that
should be standard.
Alan
On 30 March 2010 15:56, Alan Borland <Alan.Borland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just a kick to see whether anyone has a preference.... I'd like to see a
> 'groupName' attribute, as in the example below, therefore on the UI we'd
> have a field named 'PROJECT' with 'PROJECT1', ' PROJECT2', ' PROJECT3' as
> selectable options.
>
>
>
> Alan.
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTagSets>
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTagSet name="PROJECT1" groupName="
> PROJECT" id="1.1.1.1.0" >
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTag name="" tagType="
> tagType7" tag7Encoding="securityAttributes" minSelection="0" maxSelection
> ="1">
>
> <spif:tagCategory name="Project1" lacv
> ="1" obsolete="false" xml:id="id_project1"></spif:tagCategory>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTag>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTagSet>
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTagSet name="PROJECT2" groupName="
> PROJECT" id="1.1.1.1.1" >
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTag name="" tagType="
> tagType7" tag7Encoding="securityAttributes" minSelection="0" maxSelection
> ="1">
>
> <spif:tagCategory name="Project2" lacv
> ="1" obsolete="false" xml:id="id_project2"></spif:tagCategory>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTag>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTagSet>
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTagSet name="PROJECT3" groupName="
> PROJECT" id="1.1.1.1.2" >
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTag name="" tagType="
> tagType7" tag7Encoding="securityAttributes" minSelection="0" maxSelection
> ="1">
>
> <spif:tagCategory name="Project3" lacv
> ="1" obsolete="false" xml:id="id_project3"></spif:tagCategory>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTag>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTagSet>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTagSets>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xmlspif-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xmlspif-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Alan Borland
> *Sent:* 19 February 2010 2:11 PM
>
> *To:* xmlspif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [xmlspif] Re: Grouping 'like' categories using the name
> attribute in securityCategoryTagSet
>
>
>
> I think my preference is for a new attribute, hopefully, part of the
> standard and not a BJ special. Up to now we have managed to use the SPIF
> without creating any additional ‘BJ’ special extensions. It would be shame
> to get this far and end up having to put in a private extension (I feel
> other developers attempting to create a UI for the SPIF will run into the
> same issue).
>
>
>
> Alan.
>
>
>
> *From:* xmlspif-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xmlspif-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Graeme Lunt
> *Sent:* 16 February 2010 09:14
> *To:* xmlspif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [xmlspif] Re: Grouping 'like' categories using the name
> attribute in securityCategoryTagSet
>
>
>
> Alan,
>
> I wouldn't want to remove the unique name from the schema check as the name
> is used in keyrefs to refer to required and excluded categories, and check
> the consistency of the SPIF.
>
> However, there is no such contraint on the name in a securityCategoryTag,
> so you could perhaps use that (in your example, they are all empty strings).
>
> You could use some formatting within the name on the securityCategoryTagSet
> e.g. "PROJECTS:Project1" - but it would probably be better just to define
> your own attribute "bj:tagSetGroup=PROJECTS".
>
> I am not sure whether this should be a standard attribute. What do other
> people think?
>
> Graeme
>
> On 10 February 2010 11:40, Alan Borland <Alan.Borland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> I have an environment where the customer has defined a number of projects
> named “Project1”, “Project2”, “Project3” etc. Each project has a category
> OID assigned to it and on the user interface we’d like to group all of the
> projects together in a single list-box. We’d end up with a SPIF that may
> include the following:
>
>
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTagSets>
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTagSet name="PROJECTS" id="1.1.1.1.0" >
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTag name="" tagType="
> tagType7" tag7Encoding="securityAttributes" minSelection="0" maxSelection
> ="1">
>
> <spif:tagCategory name="Project1" lacv
> ="1" obsolete="false" xml:id="id_project1"></spif:tagCategory>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTag>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTagSet>
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTagSet name="PROJECTS" id="1.1.1.1.1" >
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTag name="" tagType="
> tagType7" tag7Encoding="securityAttributes" minSelection="0" maxSelection
> ="1">
>
> <spif:tagCategory name="Project2" lacv
> ="1" obsolete="false" xml:id="id_project2"></spif:tagCategory>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTag>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTagSet>
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTagSet name="PROJECTS" id="1.1.1.1.2" >
>
> <spif:securityCategoryTag name="" tagType="
> tagType7" tag7Encoding="securityAttributes" minSelection="0" maxSelection
> ="1">
>
> <spif:tagCategory name="Project3" lacv
> ="1" obsolete="false" xml:id="id_project3"></spif:tagCategory>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTag>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTagSet>
>
> </spif:securityCategoryTagSets>
>
>
>
> However, this will fail the schema check because we don’t have unique
> names for the ‘name’ attribute on the ‘securityCategoryTagSet’
> (“PROJECTS”). This is what I was going to use to group ‘like’ categories
> together on the user interface. I need an attribute that can be used to
> ‘group’ similar categories together, the name seemed an easy choice for me
> and wondered whether the unique constraints could be removed from the
> schema, or a new ‘group’ attribute created?
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> Alan.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Alan Borland
> *Technical Architect
>
> *Boldon James Limited, *a QinetiQ company
>
> Mobile: +44 (0)7810 556709
> Direct: +44 (0)1270 507841
> Switch: +44 (0)1270 507800
> Email: alan.borland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Web: www.boldonjames.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Classification added by SAFEmail - Labelling, Protective Marking and
> Release Control for Secure Messaging from Boldon James –
> www.boldonjames.com/safemail-ics
>
Other related posts:
