...
| Name | Relevant actor or component in SAML federation model | Relevant actor or component in UMA model |
|---|---|---|
| Request Authentication | End User A | Resource Owner |
| Authenticate | Authentication Service fronting SAML IdP | Authentication Service fronting Resource Server |
| Request Authorization to edit White Page (WP) Information | End User A | Requesting Party A |
| Grant Authorization to edit WP Information | Portal Tab App behind SAML SP | Authorization Server |
| Edit WP Information | End User A | Resource Owner |
| Set Access Policy for WP Information | End User A | Resource Owner |
| Persist Access Policy for WP Information | Not SAML Specified | Authorization Server |
| Put WP Information Online | Portal Tab | Resource Server |
| Find Person WP Information | End User B | Requesting Party B |
| Request Authorization for WP Information Access | End User B | Requesting Party B |
| Grant Authorization for WP Information Access | Portal Tab App behind SAML SP | Authorization Server |
| Show WP Information | Portal Tab App | Resource Server or Client |
This simple example already highlights some differences between a SAML-based solution and an UMA-based solution. Note that functions performed by the Portal Tab App are carried out by more than one component in the UMA model. This helps explain the need for a protocol for cooperatively provided services in the UMA model–The Resource Server and Authorization Server need to collaborate to accomplish the usage scenario. Conversely the comparison highlights that elements of the usage scenario are "out of band" with respect to the SAML model. A full solution would have to be "SAML plus".