Hi All, I hope you have (or have had) a good face-to-face meeting. On the conference call previously we have discussed aggregate accounting and made moves to move it out of scope. I attach below, a valid and well formed record, using the definitions from section 10 of the spec. <UsageRecord> <RecordId urwg:recordId="foo"/> <UserIdentity> <ds:KeyInfo xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"> <X509Data> <X509SubjectName>cn=matt ford</X509SubjectName> </X509Data> </ds:KeyInfo> </UserIdentity> <StartTime urwg:description="accountperiod">2003-06-16T08:24:32Z</StartTime> <EndTime urwg:description="accountperiod">2006-05-08T10:34:58Z</EndTime> <CPUDuration urwg:description="sum over accountperiod for UserIdentity">234234324325</CPUDuration> <WallDuration urwg:description="sum over accountperiod for UserIdentity">23423434</WallDuration> <Status urwg:description="all complete jobs over accounting period for UserIdentity">completed</Status> </UsageRecord> This I think certainly constitutes a valid aggregate record. It would require a farily significant rewrite to make this _not_ be allowed. I'm thinking of using something like this to report total cpuduration for some of my users. Is this against the spirit of the clarification we are trying to make, should this be something that is allowed? The move away from aggregation is a big one...or have I been too liberal in my interpretation (but I'd argue against this) Matt.