Subject: [scim] Schema and representation consistency

From: Steve Moyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:06:05 -0400

I've been working towards being able to lint SCIM resources against
their respective SCIM schemas and have a few comments that would help
with consistency:

1)  The ResourceType, Schema and ServiceProviderConfiguration schemas
are missing a their meta attributes.  Without the "meta.resourceType
attribute" being set to "Schema" there's no definitive way to declare
that these JSON documents are in fact schemas.  See number three below.

2)  With the exception of the "Service Provider Configuration" schema,
schemas with compound names use camel-case (and there are no spaces). 
I'd suggest changing the name attribute of this schema from "Service
Provider Configuration" to "ServiceProviderConfiguration" for consistency.

3)  It would be nice to be able to lint all resources against the
schema(s) described in their "schemas" attribute.  Current, there is no
"schemas" attribute in the Schema resource but could schemas perhaps
reference "urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:core:2.0:Schema".

4)  The "meta.location" attributes are full URIs in the resource
representations but relative URIs in the schema definitions (or missing
per number one above).  Should they all be relative to the
ServiceProvider's path?

Thanks again for all the work that went into these specifications,
they're really fun to develop against!

Steve

---

From: Phil Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:56:27 -0700

I believe the WG intent is that these are discovery endpoints not resources. 

Phil

> On Apr 25, 2015, at 11:06, Steve Moyer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim