Technology Matrix
This page is now historical. See the FAQ for up-to-date technology comparisons.
Historical material
The following matrix compares and contrasts UMA (in combination with some relationship management application interface) with other related technologies. Note that the indications of features are not meant to imply value judgments, nor are the feature descriptions or technologies meant to represent complete listings. (Further discussion of the feature descriptions appears below.)
The slides from the EIC workshop held 4 May 2010 contains a series of diagrams that may be helpful in comparing the architectures of several popular technologies mentioned below.
| UMA + reln mgr | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
login-time attribute transfer |
| yes | yes | yes |
|
|
|
|
| yes |
back-channel controlled access | yes |
| yes. By PDS if self-issed; By UMA if managed. |
| yes | yes |
|
|
| yes |
separate policy decision hub | yes |
| PDS is hub if self-issued; UMA AM is hub if managed |
|
|
| yes |
|
|
|
on-board storage of user data | yes (if RM is a Host) | yes (self-issued cards) | yes (if self-issued cards) (by PDS); | yes |
|
|
| yes (required) |
|
|
user-imposed policy | yes |
| plans to rely on UMA |
| yes | yes (through XACML/CARML) | yes (through CARML) | ? | ? |
|
user-imposed terms | yes |
| plans to rely on UMA |
|
|
|
|
| yes (link contract) | partial (user selection among RP terms) |
binding of ID(s) to data shared | late | early (usually) | early (usually) or late | early | late | late |
| late |
| early |
RESTful/resource oriented | yes |
| yes | yes | yes | potentially (ID-WSF Evo) |
| yes |
| yes |
multi-party write access | user delegates write access | mutual "co-ownership" of data | short term: user delegates write access of block of attributes |
|
|
|
|
|
| user delegates write access |
...