[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Attributes Correspondence--now with RACF.
Still haven't added Liberty Person or Liberty Employee--Jeff Bohren suggested that we do that. However, patterns are starting to form--or maybe I've just been looking at this too long. ;-) It would be nice at some point to put these schema attributes and correspondences into a database so that we could analyze data, report results and people could contribute additional schemas or revised correspondences. I'm trying to remove the emotion (as much as possible) from the process of selecting "standard" attributes. I have no problem special-casing a few favorites (and the attributes that model standard capabilities probably get a pass as "operational" attributes), but I'd like the criteria for selecting the rest of the attributes to be as objective as possible. My biggest question is this: In general, at what threshold of functional correspondence (commonality) we should nominate/consider an attribute to be "standard"? A) Every schema must have an attribute that functionally corresponds. B) The majority of schemas must have an attribute that functionally corresponds. C) More than one schema must have an attribute that functionally corresponds. D) One schema must have an attribute that functionally corresponds. What do you all think?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]