RE: Collections: Sets, bags or something else?

I think David was gently suggesting that replacing 'collection' with 'bag' may be more accurate.

All the best, Ashok 

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:15 PM
To: David Hull; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: Collections: Sets, bags or something else?

 

> that "collection" here means "unordered collection with 

>duplicates allowed", informally known as a "bag".
>Is this the intended meaning?

 

Yes

 

>If the intended meaning is to allow duplicates, is there 

>any special meaning to the same alternative appearing more than 

>once in a policy

 

No

 

We hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Asir S Vedamuthu

Microsoft Corporation

 

 

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:24 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Collections: Sets, bags or something else?

 

A follow-up to my previous:

The spec appears to carefully use "collection" and not "set".  This, together with the absence of expression equivalence rules like a+a=a and a*a=a and the note that assertions of the same type may occur in an alternative, suggest that "collection" here means "unordered collection with duplicates allowed", informally known as a "bag".

Is this the intended meaning?  It's not unheard of to use "collection" to mean "set" (i.e., duplicates are not considered).  If the intended meaning is to allow duplicates, is there any special meaning to the same alternative appearing more than once in a policy (as opposed to the same assertion (type?) appearing more than once in an alternative, which behavior is out of scope).