- From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:52:56 -0400
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Cc: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
since none means no reply, I do not think we have negation problem with it. Tom Anish Karmarkar wrote: > > Rogers, Tony wrote: >> I believe we have always intended that the "none" URI is acceptable >> for any response EPR. >> > > That is exactly the issue. Because of this, the assertions become > overlapping. When one brings in the negation effect because of > alternatives, this results in self-contradiction. > > -Anish > -- > >> I wonder if we need another assertion to state that the "none" URI is >> explicitly not allowed? I'd strongly prefer that it be an assertion >> that "none" is NOT acceptable, rather than have an assertion that it >> was acceptable (because it is permitted all the time at the moment). >> Then if you specify AnonResponse + NoneUnacceptable you would be >> insisting upon the Anon URI (because the None URI is forbidden). >> >> Why do I think I may regret asking this question? >> >> Tony Rogers >> CA, Inc >> Senior Architect, Development >> tony.rogers@ca.com <mailto:tony.rogers@ca.com> >> co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS >> co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Anish Karmarkar >> *Sent:* Mon 16-Apr-07 12:55 >> *To:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org >> *Subject:* Policy alternatives, negation, [Non]AnonResponse assertion >> and the none URI >> >> >> There is view among the WS-Policy wonks (not sure how widely accepted >> this is or whether the WS-Policy specs explicitly calls this out) that >> when there are alternatives present and the selected alternative does >> not contain an assertion X but another alternative does, then the effect >> of such a selection consists of negation of X. >> >> We have two assertions AnonResponse and NonAnonResponse assertions. Both >> of them require that the 'none' URI be allowed for the response EPR. >> Does that mean that negation of any of these implies 'none' must not be >> used? >> >> If so, that is a problem, none is useful for things like one-way >> operations that don't use the response EPR for that MEP. >> >> Additionally, if one has two alternatives one with AnonResponse only and >> one with NonAnonResponse only, then that would be self-contradictory. >> >> -Anish >> -- >> >> >> > > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 19:53:20 UTC