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

RE: AIN, NOBI and composition

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:42:24 -0700
Message-ID: <4260A18CD3F05B469E67BC6C20464EAC17498C@rcpbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "Daniel Roth" <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

Well, I think we need to have clear wording for all the "alternatives"
before the working group.  

The way I see it:
AIN Vocabulary flavour: Any assertion not in a vocabulary should not be
applied (Original chris proposal)
AIN Closed favour: Any assertion not in an alternative should not be
applied (revised chris proposal)
AIN Removal: Any assertion not in alternative means nothing.  It may or
may not be applied.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:29 PM
> To: Daniel Roth; David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: AIN, NOBI and composition
> 
> Dan:
> I'm sorry, but that's not how I read it.
> 
> My reading is that you CANNOT apply assertions that are not 
> in the selected alternative.  That, to me feels like negation.
> 
> I think we shd get behind Monica's explicit wording that 
> eliminates the fuzz factor.
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- 
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Roth
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:12 PM
> > To: David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: AIN, NOBI and composition
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > messageSecurity|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 23:43:09 GMT

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