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

Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:10:31 -0700
Message-ID: <4260A18CD3F05B469E67BC6C20464EAC1B7663@rcpbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

Here's my revised estimate of the positions:

Overview
There are roughly 3 positions that may be taken on the issue of the
meaning of assertions in alternative(s).

1. AIN Vocabulary flavour: 
Any behaviour not implied by an assertion that is in a vocabulary should
not be applied (Roughly original chris proposal)

No proponents. No further elaboration planned.

2. AIN Closed world flavour (revised MSFT/IBM proposal): 
Any behaviour not implied by an alternative must not be applied.  Any
behaviors implied by assertions in an alternative must be applied. 

Questions:
1. Is it OK to omit Ignorable="true" Assertion?
2. Is it OK to omit Optional="true" Assertion?

Pros
This ensures that a provider will provide a "complete" description of
the behaviors and thus guarantee interop including optional/ignorable.

Cons
Pending questions, may limit providers ability to apply behaviors.

3. AIN Removal (open world): 
Any behaviour not implied by any assertions in an alternative may or may
not be applied.  Any behaviors implied by assertions in an alternative
must be applied. 

Pros
Perception of "simpler" specification.  Allows service fuller control
over application of behaviors.  

Cons
Provider might not provide "complete" description.  Interop is
guaranteed but optional and/or ignorable behaviors may be missed by
clients. 

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2007 21:10:48 GMT

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