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

Re: Notes - Treasure Hunt - Nov 7th 2006

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:59:44 -0000
Message-ID: <008401c7034e$e89cefc0$3901020a@sberyoz>
To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>, "Daniel Roth" <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Sorry for spamming :

And the problem will still remain :

we have a truly private assertion, and this all will just work, why would anyone be concerned about removing truly private assertions :

<foo:trulyPrivateAssertion wsp:ignorable="true"/>
<foo:OfTrueInterestToRequesters wsp:ignorable="true"/>

<foo:trulyPrivateAssertion wsp:optional="true"/>

Perhaps it's a strong statement :-), but only making wsp:optional to be an attribute which marks assertions which can be of true interest to requesters (for whatever reason) and using either private or standard attribute like wsp:local to mark truly private assertions, alongside with clarifying what an alternative means to a requester will lead to a lesser confusion and simplicity....If it were the case then in design-time scenario it would be obvious that it makes sense to delegate to a user the handling of any unrecognized assertions in a chosen alternatives, because it's clear that they're can be of true interest. Ortherwise a user will get a lot of noise.



Enjoy, Sergey

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sergey Beryozkin 
  To: Sergey Beryozkin ; Daniel Roth ; public-ws-policy@w3.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 3:18 PM
  Subject: Re: Notes - Treasure Hunt - Nov 7th 2006


  I'll ask a different question.. Is it a "lie" : ?

  <wsp:Policy>
      <wsp:ExactlyOnce>
          <!-- Alt1 -->
          <wsp:All>
               <iona:hightlyThrouputtable signedAndVerifiedBy=".."/>
          </wsp:All>
          <!-- Alt2 -->
          <wsp:All>
                <ws:Reliable/>
          </wsp:All> 
      </wsp:ExactlyOnce>
  </wsp:Policy>

  No, its' not. Alt1 is what a client1 got. Alt2 is what a client2 got. Imagine there's no two alternatives.
  A client is asking a broker : find me a service with 'Alt1', another one is asking for a service matching alt2;
  Is this a 'lie' ? : 

  Client1 gets this. The service happens to be reliable, but we don't see it here, did provider 'cheated' :

  <wsp:Policy>
      <wsp:ExactlyOnce>
          <!-- Alt1 -->
          <wsp:All>
               <iona:hightlyThrouputtable signedAndVerifiedBy=".."/>
          </wsp:All>
      </wsp:ExactlyOnce>
  </wsp:Policy>

  Client2 gets this. The service happens to be highly-throuputtable, but we don't see it here, did provider 'cheated' :
    
  <wsp:Policy>
      <wsp:ExactlyOnce>
          <!-- Alt2 --> 
          <wsp:All>
                <ws:Reliable/>
          </wsp:All> 
      </wsp:ExactlyOnce>
  </wsp:Policy>

  No I don't think so. 

  The key is understanding what an alternative is IMHO. Alternative is a self-contained, unrelated to other alternatives, piece of vocabulary a client has to understand and do something about, be it a no-op, send a notification to a peer that it's found a highly-throuputtable service, marked a GUI box that a highly-throuputtable service has been found etc... 
  Treating wsp:optional in a current way makes alternatives more then just pieces of vocabularies.

  Thanks, Sergey

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Sergey Beryozkin 
    To: Sergey Beryozkin ; Daniel Roth ; public-ws-policy@w3.org 
    Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:56 PM
    Subject: Re: Notes - Treasure Hunt - Nov 7th 2006


    Sorry, forgot to add. The statement that a provider is "lying" by saying 
    <iona:hightlyThrouputtable wsp:optional="true" signedAndVerifiedBy=".."/>
    is totally wrong IMHO...
    The provider is saying that requesters may ignore this statement and this is what the Proposal1 was all about. Adding new attribute to differentiate between different shades of optionality will only complicate the issue.

    Thanks, Sergey
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Sergey Beryozkin 
      To: Daniel Roth ; public-ws-policy@w3.org 
      Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:52 PM
      Subject: Re: Notes - Treasure Hunt - Nov 7th 2006


      Hi

      I've read the text...

      It appears we'll have 

      wsp:optional="true"/false
      wsp:ignorable="true"/false

      Can someone please explain me what difference, from a requester's perspective these statements make :

      <MTOM wsp:optional="true">
      <MTOM wsp:ignorable="true">
      <MTOM wsp:ignorable="true" wsp:optional="false">
      <MTOM wsp:ignorable="false" wsp:optional="true">

      Thanks, Sergey


      ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Daniel Roth 
        To: public-ws-policy@w3.org 
        Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:04 PM
        Subject: Notes - Treasure Hunt - Nov 7th 2006


        Asir is having network problems, so I'm sending this on his behalf.

         

        Daniel Roth
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 15:58:36 GMT

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