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

Re: AIN, NOBI and composition

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 16:16:53 -0700
To: Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>
Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-id: <464104E5.9000507@sun.com>

Daniel Roth wrote:

>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
>  
>
mm1: Daniel, can you provide more detail on how you think this proposal 
separates us from AIN given this statement (in "NOBI"):

An alternative with one or more assertions indicates behaviors implied by those, and only those assertions. If a policy alternative does not specify a behavior then the alternative means the behavior is not applied.
  

And, even if x.vocabulary is deleted, what has changed substantively 
changed from what we had before? Thanks.


>-----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 23:16:28 UTC

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