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: Wed, 09 May 2007 13:50:27 -0700
To: Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>
Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-id: <46423413.6010706@sun.com>

Daniel Roth wrote:

>We think these sentences are different.  Let me try to explain using Dave's RSPAssertion example.
>
>The RSPAssertion maps to two behaviors: (RM, Security)
>The RMAssertion maps to one behavior: (RM)
>
>OK, so based on the two sentences below, what does the following policy mean?  What behaviors does the policy subject require?:
>
><Policy><RSPAssertion/></Policy>
>
>The first sentence says that the policy means the policy subject requires (RM, Security).  Full stop.
>
>The second sentence says that the policy means the policy subject requires (RM, Security, NOT(RM), NOT(Addressing), NOT(MTOM), ... etc for all absent assertions)
>
>The second sentence results in a very confusing situation: What does it mean to do RM and NOT(RM)?  Does the absence of the RMAssertion cancel out the RM-ness of the RSPAssertion?  Is the policy self-contradicting?  This is definitely not the semantic we want for policy alternatives.
>
>The first sentence results in a clear and simple interpretation of the policy and its alternatives.
>
>Daniel Roth
>  
>
Daniel, there is a difference between:

    1. An alternative with one or more assertions indicates behaviors
    implied by those, and only those assertions.

and 

    2. No behaviors are to be applied for the alternative other than the
    behaviors specified by the assertions in the alternative.

I believe we seemingly agree on 1.; where we differ is 2. Since the definition of a policy assertion
elicits a behavior, it is hard to differentiate the two statements that Dave O quoted despite the caveat you've provided.

If we require RSP FULL STOP, that should be it FULL STOP.

    An alternative with one or more assertions indicates behaviors
    implied by those, and only those assertions.

This is also consistent with that Mary Ann Hondo suggested is we 
acknowledge this aspect in Section 4.5 in intersection.

If I heard and understood Chris Ferris correctly today, he did say what 
he couldn't live with. Is this something he could (live with)? Thanks.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 9:24 AM
>To: Daniel Roth; Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
>Subject: RE: AIN, NOBI and composition
>
>We continue to talk past each other.  I think the following two
>sentences are equivalent:
>"No behaviors are to be applied for the alternative other than the
>behaviors specified by the assertions in the alternative"
>"The absence of an assertion means that the behaviour specified by the
>absent assertion should not be applied".
>
>Cheers,
>Dave
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Daniel Roth [mailto:Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:52 PM
>>To: David Orchard; Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: AIN, NOBI and composition
>>
>>    
>>
>>>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 Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:49:53 UTC

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