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

Re: [Issue 4288 PRIMER] Updated Primer Proposal for Action 217 and Issue 4288

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:27:19 -0800
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-id: <45C9FDE7.4070108@sun.com>


|hirsch: why is the following sentence in the proposal needed?

    |"Where a behavior is not engaged, the absence of policy
    expressions  does not indicate anything about the |capabilities and
    requirements of a service."

|Doesn't the previous sentence in the proposal (shown below here) make  
the point regarding the absence of a policy |assertion?

    |"When a policy assertion is absent, a policy aware client should 
    not conclude anything (other than ‘no claims’)
    |about the absence of  that policy assertion. "

 >>Monica comment: Frederick,
We are attempting to differentiate policy assertion and expression, and 
the treatment thereof (granted more work may be needed and in the 
current sections, an optimal place to do so has proved a challenge).  
This could be shortened so folks understand the differences with:

    |"The absence of policy expressions does not indicate anything about
    the capabilities and requirements of a |service."

One prime intent was to move this text up so it is understood where we 
talk about assertions and expressions (with a subtle reasoning to 
differentiate) given the preceding text in this section particularly the 
last sentence, reference:

    Like Contoso’s optional support for Optimized MIME Serialization,
    there are behaviors that may be engaged (in contrast to must be
    engaged) for a Web service interaction. A service provider will not
    fault if these behaviors are not engaged. Policy assertions can be
    marked optional to represent behaviors that may be engaged for an
    interaction. A policy assertion is marked as optional using the
    |wsp:Optional| attribute. Optional assertions represent the
    capabilities of the service provider as opposed to the requirements
    of the service provider.


Thanks.

========
On Feb 6, 2007, at 7:41 PM, ext Monica J. Martin wrote:

> Updated proposal 6 February 2007 for Issue 4288 and to close Action  
> 217. Combined proposal from MaryAnn Hondo, Fabian Ritzmann and  Monica 
> J. Martin.
>    Reference: Primer,
>    http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy- 
> primer.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
>    Action Item 217: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/ 
> actions/217
>    Issue: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4288
>
> See attached the proposed changes to the Primer document  [referenced 
> above] with redlines/tracked changes shown. The changes  are captured 
> in either .htm or .pdf in a .zip (renamed to .zzz).  Please change the 
> .zzz suffix to .zip to open.
>
> Thank you.* <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4288>*
> <ws-policy-issue4288-action217-update-020607.zzz>
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 16:27:37 GMT

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