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

RE: AIN, NOBI and composition

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:23:04 -0700
Message-ID: <4260A18CD3F05B469E67BC6C20464EAC063341@rcpbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "Daniel Roth" <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
For some reason, I'm not seeing Dan Roth's messages.   I checked my spam
filter...
 
I'm starting to see the subtlety here.   The advantage of saying it the
first way is that it's a positive statement about the behaviours to be
applied,and then using that to negate other behaviours, whereas the
second way is a positve statement about assertions and then using that
to negate other assertions, which runs into the behaviour "overlap"
problem.  This problem can be avoided by adding a bit of text.
 
Are the following sentences equivalent?
 
"Any and all behaviours specified by the assertions SHOULD be applied
and any and all behaviours unspecified by the assertions SHOULD NOT be
applied"
"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 unless that behaviour is
specified by an assertion in the alternative".

Cheers,
dave
 


________________________________

	From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:47 AM
	To: Daniel Roth
	Cc: Ashok Malhotra; David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org;
public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
	Subject: RE: AIN, NOBI and composition
	
	

	+1 
	
	Christopher Ferris
	STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
	email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
	blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
	phone: +1 508 377 9295 
	
	public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 05/09/2007 03:14:52 PM:
	
	> 
	> 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
	> 
	> -----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 Thursday, 10 May 2007 17:23:12 UTC

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