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

Re: [NEW ISSUE]: LC Comments from SAWSDL WG

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:51:46 -0500
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7A205D81.562EBBB7-ON85257265.00048429-85257265.0004BA53@us.ibm.com>
The statement refers to the semantic of the __assertions__, not to the 
framework or attachments
specs themselves.

It isn't clear to me that we can say anything about the 
subject/scope/semantic of an assertion.

I think that this does indeed seem reasonable as a guideline.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 377 9295



Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
01/15/2007 10:02 AM

To
ext Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
cc
Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Felix Sasaki 
<fsasaki@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Subject
Re: [NEW ISSUE]: LC Comments from SAWSDL WG







If a normative statement such as "SHOULD NOT" needs to be expressed, 
then doesn't that need to be in either the framework or attachment 
specification?

I agree discussion belongs in guidelines, but am asking about where 
to place the corresponding normative statement.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Jan 14, 2007, at 1:50 AM, ext Asir Vedamuthu wrote:

>
>> Policy Assertions on interfaces, (or WSDL 1.1 portTypes), operations
>> and messages (the abstract WSDL descriptions) SHOULD NOT describe the
>> formal semantics of messages or the action performed by the 
>> operations.
>
> This is a guideline for the assertion authors. Section 4.3.3 'Self
> Describing Messages' in the Guidelines document makes a similar 
> general
> point: 'Policy assertions should not be used express the semantics 
> of a
> message' [1]. We agree that assertion authors should not define policy
> assertions to represent information that is necessary to understand a
> message. The Guidelines document is the natural residence for such
> materials. The suggested guideline cannot be enforced by the 
> attachment
> draft. We suggest marking this issue as a Guidelines document issue.
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-guidelines-20061221/#self- 
> describ
> ing
>
> 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 Felix Sasaki
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:07 AM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: [NEW ISSUE]: LC Comments from SAWSDL WG
>
>
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-comments/ 
> 2007Jan/00
> 00.html
> and http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4188 . Below is a 
> copy
> of the text.
>
> Felix
>
> The SAWSDL Working Group has reviewed the Web Services Policy 1.5 
> set of
> specifications and has the following comments.
>
> We assume that semantic annotations and policy attachments are
> orthogonal
> extensions to WSDL 2.0 (and 1.1) and when combined on the same WSDL
> component , can be processed and interpreted independently.  You 
> should
> confirm that this is the case.
>
> We recommend that the following statement be made in Web Services 
> Policy
> 1.5  - Attachment to avoid possible future conflicts between SAWSDL 
> and
> the
> WS-Policy specifications:  Policy Assertions on interfaces, (or 
> WSDL 1.1
> portTypes), operations and messages (the abstract WSDL descriptions)
> SHOULD
> NOT describe the formal semantics of messages or the action 
> performed by
> the operations.
>
> Regards,
> Joel
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2007 00:51:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:45 GMT