W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Policy alternatives, negation, [Non]AnonResponse assertion and the none URI

From: Paul Fremantle <pzfreo@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:06:40 +0100
Message-ID: <88f5d710704161406q488dc34fp8f36851f845b5c46@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Anish

I think you are making a logical mistake by associating the
acceptability of the none with those assertions. The mistake you are
making can be better explained with some analogous logic.

If I state that it is not true that Paul likes cheese, you can't infer
anything about whether I like chocolate!

In other words neither assertion should state anything about the
acceptability of the none replyto. That should be stated elsewhere.

Paul



On 4/16/07, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> 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
> > --
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 21:06:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:17 GMT