[WG-UMA] E-commerce scenario feedback

Eve Maler eve at xmlgrrl.com
Thu Jan 14 18:42:57 EST 2010


Aha, thanks.  I can see your point about generalizing this.  It kind of gets to a conceptual inconsistency that we've been allowing ourselves in the UMA scenarios and use cases.  I don't think the inconsistency is bad, per se, since I want people to feel comfortable getting any and all potential UMA problem spaces on the table.

But it may lead to some confusion: Some scenarios are "vertical", talking about a particular real-life or realistic example and then following its implications (which may be general or generalizable), and some are "horizontal", talking about a generic technical situation.  E.g., e-commerce and personal loan are vertical in nature, and requester delegate and the terms negotiation stuff are horizontal.  And there are others that might be hybrids.

I'm reluctant to take the verticality out of e-commerce, since I really did examine the fields that you need to fill in on a few e-commerce sites.  But its distinctive aspects are shared by other examples, of which quite a few are certainly also VRMish.  What if I were to add a paragraph or subsection that discusses other types of requester applications that might benefit from such packages of fresh information?

But if people would really rather broaden it, that's okay too...  I think it would remain somewhat vertical that way, just, um, "wider".

	Eve

On 14 Jan 2010, at 10:36 AM, Joe Andrieu wrote:

> Eve,
> 
> The main thing I would suggest is that it might do better to remove the 
> Account/Profile term from the title.  I think a lot more interesting 
> information could be provided, such as affiliations (AAA, AARP, etc.). 
> You might consider "personal" or "identity"...
> 
> -j
> 
> -- 
> Joe Andrieu
> joe at switchbook.com
> +1 (805) 705-8651
> http://www.switchbook.com


Eve Maler
eve at xmlgrrl.com
http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog



More information about the WG-UMA mailing list