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 20:24:26 +0100
Message-Id: <F97CBAD5-17E5-4EF5-BD43-8782483CA25E@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
To: fsasaki@w3.org

On Sep 12, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote:

>> On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Sorry for being unclear. Please replace "out of scope" with  
> "something we
> should not spend time on" in this particular statement.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

>> 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*.
> I think these two items are defined in the current drafts.

I haven't pressed *too* hard yet, but I am, in general, a bit leary  
about this sort of informal specification. But that's me.

> I don't want to
> judge other possible possible specifications.

That's fair enough.

> I'm arguing in terms of time
> we would need to discuss them.

That's reasonable, just distinct from "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.
> Here I would say that the notions of equivalence and generality  
> rely on an
> implementation of 3621.

Not necessarily, since I'm talking only of explicit equivalence and  
generality between *assertions*.

But if the current specifications don't let us derive equivalence  
between policies (or generality), then I'm very worried about them.

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 19:24:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:27 UTC