W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > February 2007

RE: NEW ISSUE (4263) [Primer] Inform domain specific processing of ignorability of assertions

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:16:03 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D6416503533BF6@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Fabian Ritzmann" <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>, "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

How about something like the following: 

{Policy Data model is available to domain-specific processing that may
take into account any aspect of the datamodel, such as the wsp:Ignorable
attribute.}

--umit


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Fabian Ritzmann
> Sent: Tuesday, Feb 06, 2007 11:54 AM
> To: Asir Vedamuthu
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE (4263) [Primer] Inform domain specific 
> processing of ignorability of assertions
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I agree that any domain-specific processing would see Ignorable 
> attributes because they are part of the policy assertion. 
> Maybe we could 
> just add something simple to the end of the section like:
> 
> "Domain-specific processing is aware of whether the assertions it is
> processing were marked as Ignorable since they are part of 
> the assertion's data model."
> 
> 
> Fabian
> 
> 
> Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> >> "Domain specific processing should be made aware of 
> whether assertions
> >> it is processing were marked as ignorable
> >>     
> >
> > Ignorable property of a policy assertion is captured in the 
> policy data model [1]. Policy intersection is computed at the 
> policy data model level and the parts of a policy assertion 
> is visible to domain specific processing. It is not clear 
> what additional information should be passed to domain 
> specific processing beyond these?
> >
> > [1] "An assertion MAY indicate that it is an ignorable 
> policy assertion (see 4.4 Ignorable Policy Assertions)" - 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-20061117/#rPolicy_Assertion
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Asir S Vedamuthu
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:22 PM
> > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Cc: Hirsch Frederick
> > Subject: NEW ISSUE (4263) [Primer] Inform domain specific 
> processing of ignorability of assertions
> >
> >
> > Bugzilla: <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4263>
> >
> > The new text added to primer on ignorable (as in issue 4041 
> and noted in
> > resolution  <http://www.w3.org/2007/01/18-ws-policy-
> > irc#T22-08-44-1> ) should
> > include explanation that domain specific processing should 
> be aware of
> > ignorable marking of assertion. (Thread about proposal for 4041 at
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/
> > 0187.html> )
> >
> > Proposal:
> >
> > Add  following text proposed to be added at end of new section 3.4.1
> > Strict and
> > Lax Policy Intersection
> >
> > "Domain specific processing should be made aware of whether
> > assertions it is
> > processing were marked as ignorable since that may impact domain
> > specific
> > processing."
> >
> > [Note that this proposal is different from the following text which
> > was removed
> > from the original proposal for 4041
> >
> > "When domain specific processing is to be performed in strict mode,
> > it is up to
> > that domain specific processing to interpret the Ignorable
> > rattribute. In lax
> > mode it is not relevant since ignorable assertions are not passed to
> > the domain
> > specific processing step of the intersection algorithm."]
> >
> > regards, Frederick
> >
> > Frederick Hirsch
> > Nokia
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 20:14:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:47 GMT