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 16:33:23 -0700
To: "Monica.Martin@Sun.COM" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
CC: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E2903CF1E4B5B144B559237FDFB291CE0492FC0225@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Hi Monica,

The new proposal allows you to understand what a policy alternative means without having to consider the absence of specific assertion types.

Using Dave's example, you don't have to think about the absence of the RMAssertion.  Instead, the example policy alternative means only the behavior implied by the RSPAssertion assertion and no other behaviors are applied.

Daniel Roth

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica.Martin@Sun.COM [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:17 PM
To: Daniel Roth
Cc: David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Re: AIN, NOBI and composition

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.
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 23:33:41 UTC

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