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 16:51:51 -0700
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E2903CF1E4B5B144B559237FDFB291CE0492FC0240@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> AIN Closed flavour: Any assertion not in an alternative should not be applied (revised chris proposal)

Chris' revised proposal doesn't say anything about the absence of assertions.  It simply says that no behaviors are to be applied for the alternative other than the behaviors specified by the assertions in the alternative.

Daniel Roth

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:42 PM
To: Ashok Malhotra; Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: AIN, NOBI and composition

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 23:52:02 GMT

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