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

RE: AIN, NOBI and composition

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 08:29:36 -0700
To: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
CC: Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E53ED3DD0EDD@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

>Again, we are all struggling if there is a difference here

We think you are asking for the differences between the updated IBM proposal at [1] and status quo. Chris clearly explained this at [2].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0055.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0097.html (see the last three paragraphs)


Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Monica J. Martin
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:27 PM
To: Daniel Roth
Cc: David Orchard; Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Re: AIN, NOBI and composition

Daniel Roth wrote:

>>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
Again, we are all struggling if there is a difference here and if so
what it actually is.  A behavior is specified by a policy assertion.
(your words=>) The behavior specified the assertions is not applied.
Again how does this differ from the status quo we have today? Thanks.
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 15:30:02 UTC

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