InCommon metadata support

[Nick Roy <>]

On 1/12/17 6:28 PM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> On 1/12/17, 8:00 PM, 
> "
>  on behalf of Tom Poage" 
> <
>  on behalf of 
> >
>  wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to figure out if this reassertion of the MDQ XML provides any 
>> benefit vs. simply pointing the vendor(s)
>> at mdq-beta (and keeping an eye on developments here) vs. the same old 
>> ways of transferring the XML through some
>> other semi-trusted means (box.com/O365/Google folder, type it out on a 
>> slip of paper ;-) ...).
> I think it depends on what the vendor is really capable of doing with it. 
> If the consumer is really going to change its behavior based on the 
> metadata changing in the correct ways, I suppose there's value. I don't 
> usually trust that that's the case unless I know what the implementation 
> is, and if I know or suspect it's not correct, I prefer to do one-time 
> exchange and know that it's a manual case than rely on automation that 
> won't actually work.
>
> Assuming you did have that confidence, I think I'd insulate myself from the 
> mdq-beta endpoint myself.

A strong +1 to what Scott has said.  MDQ-beta is just that: a beta.  It
will go away at some point in favor of a production per-entity metadata
service.  Of course, we will communicate with the community before that
happens, but I have very little confidence that all but the most savvy
will get that message, know what it means, remember that they are using
MDQ-beta, and then act on the change.

Nick

>
> -- Scott
>
>