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

Re: ACTION-294 Ashok to open a CR issue with text to define "collection"

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 10:16:09 -0700
To: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Cc: "Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM" <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-id: <463B6A59.5000403@sun.com>


>Ashok Malhotra wrote: Fabian:
>The WS-Policy specification does not talk about implementations.
>Implementations are free to do what they wish, and will generally use specialized data structures.  But that not the point.  The spec says a policy is an unordered collection of policy alternatives which can include duplicate alternatives.
>
>All the best, Ashok
>  
>
mm1: I think the point of the question is if it should say that Ashok. 
Thanks.

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM [mailto:Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM]
>>Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 5:49 AM
>>To: Ashok Malhotra
>>Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: ACTION-294 Ashok to open a CR issue with text to define
>>"collection"
>>
>>To point 3, at least when it comes to WSDL, I don't think duplicate
>>subjects (i.e. WSDL elements with the same fully qualified name) make
>>sense. They certainly are not ordered.
>>
>>Regarding points 1 and 2, wouldn't it be an implementation decision if
>>duplicates are maintained (bag) or discarded/collapsed (set)? I can't
>>find any necessity to keep duplicates.
>>
>>Fabian
>>
>>
>>Ashok Malhotra wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>My point was that the word 'collection' in Computer Science is used as
>>>a generic term to cover several types of collections.
>>>
>>>See definition from Wikipedia below. Thus, it would be better to be
>>>more precise about the exact type of collection we use in WS-Policy:
>>>
>>>In _object-oriented programming_
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming>, a*
>>>collection class* is any _class_
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28computer_science%29> that is
>>>capable of storing other _objects_
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28computer_science%29>.
>>>Collection classes usually implement some kind of _data structure_
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_structure>, such as a _list_
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_%28computing%29>, _map_
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_array>, _set_
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_%28computer_science%29>, _array_
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array>, or _tree_
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_%28data_structure%29>. A collection
>>>class is usually able to store an arbitrary number of data items, i.e.
>>>the size of the collection is adjusted automatically.
>>>
>>>In the framework document we use 'collection' in three contexts:
>>>
>>>1. "A _policy_ <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/> is a
>>>collection of policy alternatives." Since alternatives can be
>>>identical and there is no order between them, a policy is a bag of
>>>alternatives.
>>>
>>>2. "A _policy alternative_
>>><http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/> is a collection of
>>>policy assertions." Here, again, the assertions in an alternative can
>>>be duplicates and are unordered, so bag seems to be the correct term.
>>>
>>>3. "A _policy scope_
>>><http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/> is a collection of
>>>policy subjects to which a policy applies." Here I am not sure. Can
>>>there be duplicate subjects in a policy scope? Aren't policy subjects
>>>ordered?
>>>
>>>If the policy subjects in a policy scope can be duplicates and are not
>>>ordered then all uses of 'collection' mean 'bag' and we can add a
>>>definition such as "In this document the word 'collection' refers to
>>>what is known in the literature as 'bag'. But I thought we should
>>>clarify point 3 first.
>>>
>>>All the best, Ashok
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 17:15:33 UTC

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