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

Re: Ferris wsp 5/1/2007: 'Will Not be Applied'

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 09:21:48 -0700
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-id: <4638BA9C.5040105@sun.com>

Chris, to address your response and leave open with a question and 
observation.

>>For:
>>    "...Instead, we could simply state that the behavior implied by an
>>    assertion that is absent from a given alternative is not to be
>>    applied in the context of the attached policy subject when that
>>    alternative is engaged"...
>>
>> martin: 3. What effect does this have on a domain's capability to restrict or not restrict that this statement (or provide semantics around it)? Related to 2.
>>    
>>
>ferris: I'm not sure that I understand the question here. Are you asking whether a domain gets to say whether a nested policy is a constraint on the parent assertion (much as WS-Addressing has done)? If so, then I do not believe 
>that the proposal affects this... I think it reinforces it.
>  
>
I am conflicted if your text is any clearer in specifying whether or not 
we mean absence=negation. Would suggest if we allow it to be, not be or 
we are neutral (my preference), we should be EXPLICIT. This would apply 
where <wsp:Policy/> (no qualification is required for a nested policy 
expression) exists or a policy assertion is absent.  The Primer 
explicitly infers we are currently NEUTRAL - no claims. Thanks.
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 16:21:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:34 UTC