W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > August 2006

Re: NEW ISSUE (3638) Need to be able to specify ordering between assertions

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:07:32 +0100
Message-Id: <7AF9B000-372B-4EE5-8E65-0083E2442FEB@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
To: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>

I'm a bit confused by this desiderata. There seem to be two casees  
mentioned:

	1) The need for a determinate order for signing/verification.

In this case the order doesn't *mean* anything. That is, we can have  
equivalent policies that differ merely by the order of assertions in  
an <all>. To ensure that we are using the authenticated policy,  
obviously we need the signed one, but, in a sense, we should be free  
to substitute any equivalent one.

	2) Order with semantic import.

I don't know what this is except to look at the example.

On Aug 29, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
[snip]
> For example, consider an assertion that adds something to a message.
> Perhaps a timestamp.  We may want to say that the timestamp is  
> added before a log record is written.
[snip]

But I have trouble wrapping my head around an *assertion* that does  
anything but state something :)

Side-effecting assertions seem like real trouble. Consider Prolog vs.  
SQL.

It could (must) mess with distribution and other properties of  
operators.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 13:08:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:40 GMT