Tim Tschampel
Tim Tschampel
I believe there is a requirement for FQN to be a URI; at least for Attributes. If true, this issue will limit the scope of future changes.
The grouping concept is sufficient from my point of view. I'd like an FQN (URN or otherwise) as a reference to a group of resource mappings I can pull in...
Option 1 makes sense to me especially if initial build cost is estimated to be the same between the two. Is the obligation FQN naming convention what would be used...
What do you think about the attribute enum having values for data (data attribute), obligation_environment (obligation attribute scoped to environment), obligation_subject (obligation attribute scoped to subjects)? Then we don't need...
Sorry, my comments were not directed at your question but was a general comment to where to put scope. **With regard to your question**: I think obligations attributes should be...
The addressable/usability concerns similar to #585 , but for resource mappings
still required
@jrschumacher : Add namespaces to Resource Mappings (Resource Mapping Groups have namespaces already)? A Resource Mapping should only use Attribute (instead of Attribute Value) when the PEP workflow needs to...