[xmlspif] Re: Grouping 'like' categories using the name attribute in securityCategoryTagSet
- From: "Alan Borland" <Alan.Borland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <xmlspif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:01:48 +0100
I think it is correct we don't extend the standard to meet that obscure
requirement that every customer inevitably has, but at the same time I
also think it is wrong that we create our own private extensions, on the
basis that if we need the extension then the possibility for someone
else needing the extension is higher. Is it worth publicising any
private extensions we (all) create on the site (using a "spifex:"
namespace for example?), so we all have a point of reference, and if in
the future one extension seems popular it can then be incorporated into
the standard?
Alan.
From: xmlspif-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xmlspif-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Alan Ross (SMHS)
Sent: 30 March 2010 4:45 PM
To: xmlspif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [xmlspif] Re: Grouping 'like' categories using the name
attribute in securityCategoryTagSet
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
Classification added by SAFEmail - Labelling, Protective Marking and
Release Control for Secure Messaging from Boldon James -
www.boldonjames.com/safemail-ics
Other related posts:
