Subject: [scim] Some minor comments after a review of the 02 specs

From: Erik Wahlström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 07:46:05 +0000

After a review of the -02 specs I found a couple of issues in the spec. It's manly language based issues.

Here is a list of some minor issues. I propose that we create one ticket with the minor changes. As far as I can see it's mainly language issues and does not effect the spec otherwise. If someone objects and see something that I can't see we can discuss them more in detail and add more tickets. 

----------------------

Missing period after Group. 

   Resource:  The Service Provider managed artifact containing one or
      more attributes; e.g., User or Group
	  
Should be changed to.

   Resource:  The Service Provider managed artifact containing one or
      more attributes; e.g., User or Group.

----------------------

Schema ID is wrong.

   Schema:  A collection of Attribute Definitions that describe the
      contents of an entire or partial Resource; e.g.,
      urn:scim:schemas:core:User:2.0.

Should be:

   Schema:  A collection of Attribute Definitions that describe the
      contents of an entire or partial Resource; e.g.,
      urn:scim:schemas:core:2.0:User.

----------------------

We removed XML, but this section still reflects that there could be other types of representations.

 When a representation does not explicitly provide support for
   indicating a schema, such as JSON, a schemas attribute is used to
   indicate the version of SCIM schema as well as any schema extensions.

Should be changed to:

 A schemas attribute is used to indicate the version of SCIM schema as well as any schema extensions.

Or:

 JSON does not explicitly provide support for indicating a schema so a  schemas attribute is used to
    indicate the version of SCIM schema as well as any schema extensions used.
 
----------------------

Since we added the Resource Type schema we should change how the Service Provider Configuration Resources talks about the ID attribute.

The Service Provider Configuration Resource says:
 
 "Unlike other core Resources, the "id" attribute is not required for the Service
   Provider Configuration Resource."

The Resource Type Resource says:

 "Unlike other core Resources, all Attributes are REQUIRED unless otherwise
   specified, and the "id" attribute is not required for the Resource
   Type Resource."

We should write something like this for both of them.

 "Unlike other core Resources like User and Group, all Attributes are REQUIRED unless otherwise
   specified, and the "id" attribute is not required for the Resource
   Type Resource."

----------------------

The Schemas Schema have a reference to the URI "urn:scim:core:2.0:User". 

Should be changed to "urn:scim:schemas:core:2.0:User" instead.

----------------------

Strange layout issue on the following section. Deindent section.

            The following multi-valued attributes are defined.  There
            are no canonical type values defined and the primary value
            serves no useful purpose.

            subAttributes  A list specifying the contained attributes.
                     OPTIONAL.

----------------------

Both the examples Service Provider Configuration resource and the Resource Type is missing the meta->location attribute. 

12.5.  Service Provider Configuration Representation

     ],
     "meta": {
       "resourceType": "ServiceProviderConfig"
       "created": "2010-01-23T04:56:22Z",
       "lastModified": "2011-05-13T04:42:34Z",
       "version": "W\/\"3694e05e9dff594\""
     }
   }

Should be:

     ],
     "meta": {
       "resourceType": "ServiceProviderConfig"
       "created": "2010-01-23T04:56:22Z",
       "lastModified": "2011-05-13T04:42:34Z",
       "version": "W\/\"3694e05e9dff594\"",
       "location": "https://example.com/v1/ServiceProviderConfigs"
     }
   }

And same for Resource Type Resource.

/ Erik