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

Re: Position on various issues

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:55:41 +0100
Message-Id: <27C2AE70-AFFD-4ACA-857D-F7C5F95F6F1A@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
To: fsasaki@w3.org

On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote:

> This mails summarizes positions on some issues, as an input for the WG
> during the f2f. See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/ 
> 0059.html .
>
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3577 Semantics of  
>> successful
>> intersection determined by domain-specific assertion content
>
> I think this is out of scope, since we are not chartered to work on
> domain-specific content.
>
>
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3599 Need a URI  
>> structure to
>> refer to WSDL 1.0 definitions, etc.
>
> I think this is out of scope. I don't see this required by the  
> charter.
> Given our hard time schedule, I think we will not be able to tackle  
> this.

For me "out of scope" means something like "listed as being out of  
scope". Not explicitly enumerated as being in scope is somewhat  
different, and not plausibly following from the explicit enumeration  
is different yet again. I say this because:

[snip]
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3621 Formal semantics
>
> I think this is out of scope, for the same reason as 3599.

I see that it's not required. I see that there are schedule issues.  
But this is just a way to specify items 1 and 2 in our charter. So  
it's hard to see that it's *out of scope*.

>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3622 Policy assertion
>> equivalence and generality
>
> I think this is out of scope, for the same reason as 3599.

If this is out of scope, it's for this reason:
	"""The processing model does not define combining or comparing of  
policy assertion parameters."""
But I don't think it it is necessarily (since it doesn't involve  
poking into assertions). It doesn't seem to be ruled out in the  
explicit out of scope section. It's just another way of combining  
assertions, really.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 19:02:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:41 GMT