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

RE: Issue 3794 proposal

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:34:08 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165029C8F5F@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
> Sent: Thursday, Nov 02, 2006 10:31 AM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Cc: Hirsch Frederick
> Subject: Issue 3794 proposal
> 
> 
> I would like to make the following proposal to resolve the 
> issue that  
> section 4 of the primer overlaps with the Guidelines document (issue  
> 3794)
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> 1. Merge sections 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 into guidelines document
> 
> 2. Move 4.2 to a new section 3.8
> 
> 3. Remove section 4 section from primer, use material in intro in  
> guidelines.
> 
> Essentially when done, we will have two documents, Primer and  
> Guidelines.
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 

Hi Frederick, 

Here is my counter proposal for this. I consider it as a friendly
amendement. 

I fully agree that we will have two documents and your point 3. 

We should remove section 4 and merge as much as possible from the
existing section to the guidelines. 

I did more detailed work on the merging aspect and further looked into
how merging may be or may not be possible in more detail. Please see my
take on whether merging certain sections make sense or not below in
detail considering the existing content of the guidelines document as it
stands and why merging may not be needed fully. 

Note: For simplicity, I will refer to the Guidelines for Policy
Assertion Authors as Guidelines. 

One stylistic approach noted is that Primer gives a one liner as Best
Practices at the end of each section. This approach could be adopted as
appropriate and adequate within the sections of the Guidelines document
as this approach is useful. 

-- Introductory Material has already been covered in more detail in the
guidelines. Hence merging this section is not deemed necessary. 

-- Secton 4.4.1 is covered in Section 5.5. The coverage of the optional
behaviors was agreed by the working group. Thus, the corresponding
material in 4.4.1 should not be merged. 

Further, there should be a reference from Section 2.6 in Primer document
to the Guidelines document Section 5.5. 

-- Topic of Assertion vs. Assertion Parameter and related issues. This
topic is covered in 5.3 in detail. Section 5.3 also covers the same
material that are covered in Sections 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4 and 4.4.5.
Thus, these sections should not be moved to the guidelines as we already
have coverage. 

However, with some modifications the Best Practices listed here are
useful. Our proposal is to include these best practices with their
replacements that should be incorporated to Section 5.3 are as follows. 

Replace: 

{Best practice: represent useful (or additional) information necessary
for engaging the behavior represented by a policy assertion as assertion
parameters} 

with 

{Best practice: represent useful (or additional) information necessary
for engaging the behavior represented by a policy assertion as assertion
parameters when the parameters are not required to signify the behavior
as they will not be significant for the intersection algorithm.} 

Replace: 

{Best practice: represent dependent behaviors that apply to the same
policy subject using nested policy assertions. 
} 

Replace this by 

{Represent behaviors that apply to the same policy subject using nested
policy assertions when these behaviors are related to each other and an
encapsulating behavior can be identified for dependent  behaviors that
are nested.} 

-- There is no basis for the guidance given in 4.4.4. Therefore, we
propose that it is not moved/merged. 

-- Section 4.4.6 is covered by 5.8 and we propose that this section is
not moved since it is already covered in the guidelines.  

-- Versioning 4.4.7 should be merged in the guidelines document to
section 5.9.3. However, the coverage is not adequate. A separate
proposal will be needed. 

-- Versioning 4.4.8. (with subsections) 

The policy language versioning discussion should be kept part of the
primer document and be moved to advanced/future topics at the end of the
Primer document. Thus section 4.4.8.1 should be retained with
modifications that will be raised as separate issues. 

-- Section 4.5 is not captured in the Guidelines Document. It should be
moved to a new section at the end of Section 7. 


Cheers, 

--umit


 
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 04:34:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:43 GMT