[WG-UMA] E-commerce scenario feedback
joe at switchbook.com
Thu Jan 14 18:57:29 EST 2010
I think the overall discussion is fine. An extra paragraph describing
for non-profile resources would add something, but the current language
isn't overly limiting.
My main concern was that the title was limiting. In the rest of the
document, you simply say "resource", so that's fine.
In light of the affiliation-based attributes already being
facilitated--indirectly--by Azigo's r-cards, I think it's an important
use case. Perhaps more importantly, my bundle of "loyalty cards" is
precisely what I want to have streamlined when accessing a vendor site.
If I can get discounts because I'm AARP, AAA, a KCRW member, and a
Blue Shield insuree, then I want those affiliations to be an easy,
streamlined part of the check out, pricing, and/or customization stages.
What I don't want to have to do is login to the AM separately--or even
use my card selector separately--for every affiliation I want considered
by the vendor/requester. I want one provisioning ceremony where I can
pick & choose all the attributes/affiliations/claims that I am
authorizing for that service. Again, this is about a claims/attribute
mashup rather than the clumsy multiple-card selection ceremonies
If you want it to feel like it is still vertical, consider including a
third-party loyalty card at the point of transaction. I don't know what
makes sense for Staples, but at any hotel, you can usually use your
airline loyalty # to get extra miles.
On 1/14/2010 3:42 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
> 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".
> On 14 Jan 2010, at 10:36 AM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
>> 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"...
>> Joe Andrieu
>> joe at switchbook.com
>> +1 (805) 705-8651
> Eve Maler
> eve at xmlgrrl.com
joe at switchbook.com
+1 (805) 705-8651
More information about the WG-UMA