Use of Source Schemas & Partner LIF Entities and Attributes in Org LIF

[thelmick-unicon]

Goal: Determine if Source schemas and Partner LIF schema entities and attributes should be incorporated into Org LIF. If so, what rules are required to ensure consistency in behavior and how to do it safely, knowing that Source schemas and Partner LIF schemas will be updated

Context: As Org LIF schemas are developed, there is a question about how entities and attributes from Source Schemas and Partner LIF schemas should be included.

Questions: Should Org LIF allow entities and attributes from Source schemas and Partner LIF schemas to be added directly into the Org LIF schema?

• If direct use is allowed:
  • Does Org LIF own the definition or does it remain owned by the schema owner?
  • How should updates to the Source schemas or Partner LIF schemas be handled?
  • What happens if a Source schema or Partner LIF schema entity or attribute is deleted?
• If direct use is not allowed:
  • How should users adapt or extend Source schemas and Partner LIF schemas for Org-specific needs?

[thelmick-unicon]

AI Summary of feedback from 2/13/2026 Wallet Users Community Call:

There was limited direct feedback on this topic from participants, but the following concerns emerged:

General Concern (implicit across discussion)

• If an organization modifies a partner or source schema locally, there may be complications later if:
  • The original partner updates their schema
  • Divergence creates incompatibility
  • It becomes unclear what the authoritative source is
    While no firm recommendation was made, there was clear concern about:
• Schema drift
• Traceability back to an authoritative source
• Long-term interoperability

Underlying theme:
If local modification is allowed, there must be clarity about origin and changes to avoid fragmentation or confusion.