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

RE: AIN, NOBI and composition

From: Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:11:42 -0700
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E2903CF1E4B5B144B559237FDFB291CE0492FC0202@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

This is exactly the problem with tying negation semantics to the absence of assertion types (AIN).

IBM's proposal fixes this by simply saying you do what you assert and nothing else (NOBI).

Daniel Roth

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 3:23 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: AIN, NOBI and composition


I wonder about AIN, NOBI, etc. and composition.

Imagine that WS-I produces an assertion that says a "RSPAssertion" means
RMAssertion and Security, perhaps exactly one of
messageSecurity|transportsecurity.  What's the meaning when some of the
assertions that are in the composition are missing?  For example, I just
say RSPAssertion.  I don't say RMAssertion, though RMAssertion is in the
vocabulary.  If I get an intersection that says RSPAssertion but not
RMAssertion, AIN has the implication that you shouldn't apply
RMAssertion yet RSPAssertion does.

We don't say anything about whether an assertion that means a behaviour
"trumps" the lack of such an assertion.

With AIN, there's a problem.  Without AIN, there's no problem because
there's no conflict.

Cheers,
Dav3e
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 23:11:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:51 GMT