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

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

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:01:48 -0700
To: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Cc: "tom@coastin.com" <tom@coastin.com>, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, ws policy <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-id: <462D10AC.8050808@sun.com>


>Ashok Malhotra wrote: Tom, you said ...
>
>>rutt: a missing assertion in a policy means it does not "apply"  This does not
>>say negation.
>>    
>>
>The wording in the spec is the "assertion will not be applied".  I take this to mean MUST NOT be applied i.e. negation.
>
That is part of the point, Ashok, you can take it in many ways and it 
may be other than what you state in the context of WS-Policy Framework.  
As indicated previously, a domain could specify that absence is negation 
as a domain specific constraint. None of my statements infer whether or 
not these constructs could be valuable or not. It is apparent this 
discussion should be brokered and resolved in the WS-Policy WG as to 
stay more confusion in domain groups such as WS-Addressing (we welcome 
their input too). Thanks.
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 20:01:21 GMT

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