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

Re: NEW ISSUE: New Attribute keyword to identify 'local' policies #3721

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:32:25 +0100
Message-ID: <00ef01c6f42a$a6e7ca10$3901020a@sberyoz>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: "William Henry" <william.henry@iona.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>


"Overloading the wsp:optional marker just complicates the matter, because
it provides a cop-out for not understanding the semantics of the
assertion by creating an alternative that only a class of clients will
understand and will engage with."
That's what wsp:optional is all about from a requester's perspective, isn't it ?
It translates to a normal form expression with two policy alternatives,
a class of clients which can not understand one alternative can choose to ignore it and
select a diff alternative.

"In terms of logging, I do not believe that it should be implemented by

+1. It has to be a wsp:local (custom:local) and stripped out out of the WSDL if possible (if custom:local then must be stripped), 
otherwise ignored by a requester.

Put wsp:local on assertion which can not be of interest to requesters, otherwise use normal assertions, doesn't matter optional or 

There's no way one can prevent a provider from misusing wsp:optional by exposing an assertion like 

Hence I believe wsp:optional wording should be improved and simplified, with a clear direction to policy authors.

Thanks, Sergey 
Received on Friday, 20 October 2006 09:31:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:28 UTC