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

Re: Intersection use case

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 01:25:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4636CF2D.5030303@tibco.com>
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
CC: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> David Hull wrote:
>> I know from one source that a given server understands WS-Addressing
>> and can handle non-anonymous response endpoints.  Furthermore, this
>> source tells us that said endpoints must have either HTTP or Jabber
>> destinations.  (for concreteness, you might think of this as a
>> default behavior for a site)
>>
>>  From another source, we learn that this same server's non-anonymous
>> response endpoints must have either Jabber or Mailto destinations.
>> (and this might be further description of the particular server)
>>
>> Combining the information from these sources, we conclude that said
>> non-anonymous endpoints must have Mailto destinations.
>>
>
> I assume you mean 'must have Jabber destinations.'
Yes.  My mistake.  Thanks.
>
>> How do we express all this in WSP?  In particular, can we use policy
>> intersection to combine the information from the two sources and get
>> the expected result.
>>
>
> IIUC, that is exactly what policy intersection is meant to do.
> Instead of getting information about the same server from two
> different sources, the more common example is intersection of policies
> at the service-side with that of the client-side.
>
>> Variant:  Instead of "must have" the sources tell us that the EPRs
>> "may have" the given kind of destination.  The combined information
>> is thus that the destinations may be HTTP, Jabber /or/ mailto.
>>
>> Further variants: It seems reasonable for sources of information to
>> be able to say things like "must not have ...", or for one source to
>> say "must have HTTP or Jabber" and another to say "must not have
>> jabber".
>
> Policy does not have a not operation, so I don't how this use case
> could be satisfied by the framework. Policy experts?
>
> -Anish
> -- 
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 05:25:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:19 GMT