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

RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 06:10:16 -0700
To: "Sverdlov, Yakov" <Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com>, "Maryann Hondo" <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
CC: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20060927061016905.00000001216@amalhotr-pc>
@font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @font-face { font-family: sans-serif; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: #606420; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: #606420; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto } TT { FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } SPAN.EmailStyle19 { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: blue; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-style-type: personal-reply } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } I agree. Let's use option 3 along with a pointer to the example. 
All the best, Ashok 
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sverdlov, Yakov Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:03 AM To: Maryann Hondo Cc: Ashok Malhotra; Monica J. Martin; public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602
Maryann,

I agree that the option 3 (with the Ashok' s pointer to an example) is better than option 1.

Regards,

Yakov Sverdlov
CA

From: Maryann Hondo [mailto:mhondo@us.ibm.com]  Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:50 AM To: Sverdlov, Yakov Cc: Ashok Malhotra; Monica J. Martin; public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602

Yakov and Ashok.  I think we're moving to consensus but I'd like you to consider this alternative text......  Maryann  Option 3:  When an assertion whose type is part of the policy's vocabulary is not included in a policy alternative, the policy alternative without the assertion type indicates that the assertion will not be applied in the context of the attached policy subject.  Option 1 ( from below)  "When an assertion whose type is part of the policy  > vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the  > behavior indicated by that policy assertion is not applied to  > a subject in that policy alternative" 
"Sverdlov, Yakov" <Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com> 
09/19/2006 01:23 PM 
To
"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, Maryann Hondo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS 
cc
<public-ws-policy@w3.org> 
Subject
RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602



+1 to Ashok Thanks, Yakov -----Original Message----- From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]  Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:33 AM To: Sverdlov, Yakov; Monica J. Martin; mhondo@us.ibm.com Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602 Yakov: I prefer option 1 because it makes it clear that the assertion should NOT be applied. We should also add a pointer here to an example such as the one I proposed at the f2f which would appear later in the document after optional and alternative has been defined. All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: Sverdlov, Yakov [mailto:Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com]  > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:25 AM > To: Monica J. Martin; Ashok Malhotra; mhondo@us.ibm.com > Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org > Subject: RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602 >  > Action: > http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01 >  > I think in the spirit of the policy assertion definition, we  > may consider referencing the behavior represented by the assertion.  >  > Modify the proposal in the email below from: > "When an assertion whose type is part of the policy  > vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the  > provider does not apply that policy assertion in that policy  > alternative." >  > To: > Option 1: > "When an assertion whose type is part of the policy  > vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the  > behavior indicated by that policy assertion is not applied to  > a subject in that policy alternative" >  > Option 2: > "When an assertion whose type is part of the policy  > vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the  > behavior [of an entity] indicated by that policy assertion is  > considered as undefined in that policy alternative" >  >  > Regards, >  > Yakov Sverdlov > CA >  > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Monica J. Martin > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:49 AM > To: Ashok Malhotra > Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org > Subject: Re: Suggested text to close Bug 3602 > Importance: High >  >  >  > ><new text> > >For example, if there is a policy with an assertion marked with > "optional='true'" this puts the assertion in the vocabulary  > of the policy. When this policy is normalized the assertion  > appears in one alternative and not in the other. If the  > alternative that does not include the assertion is chosen  > then it is explicitly prohibited to apply the assertion as  > the assertion is part of the policy vocabulary. > >  > > > mm1: Ashok, where this text falls in the specification, it is  > premature to discuss wsp:Optional, normalization and XML  > representation. In addition, this text duplicates existing  > material. We could revise the existing text in Section 3.2: >  >   Change from: An assertion whose type is part of the policy's >   vocabulary but is not included in an alternative is explicitly >   prohibited by the alternative. >   Change to: When an assertion whose type is part of the policy >   vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative,  > the provider >   does not apply that policy assertion in that policy alternative. >  > An option to consider rather than another example is to  > reference further sections and include more detail in the  > Guideline and/or Primer documents. Thanks. >  >  >  >  > 
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 13:12:04 GMT

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