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

FW: [Bug 4553] Exact meaning of "all of the assertions in both alternatives"

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 19:20:30 -0700
To: "dmh@tibco.com" <dmh@tibco.com>
CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E54314FD7781@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

>* Bag union: [A B B B C C C C C D D] (all
>occurrences of all assertions from 1
>together with all occurrences of all assertions from 2)

Your first interpretation is correct!

The phrase "all of the assertions" is neither set union nor set intersection. It literally means all of the assertions in both alternatives.

If you think the phrase "all of the assertions" does not capture the intent, may I request you to propose a concrete wording?

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-qa-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-qa-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:31 AM
To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 4553] Exact meaning of "all of the assertions in both alternatives"


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4553

           Summary: Exact meaning of "all of the assertions in both
                    alternatives"
           Product: WS-Policy
           Version: CR
          Platform: All
               URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-
                    policy/2007May/0019.html
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Framework
        AssignedTo: fsasaki@w3.org
        ReportedBy: dmh@tibco.com
         QAContact: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org


It is not clear which of three operations is meant in the statement (in section
4.5) that "If two alternatives are compatible, their intersection is an
alternative containing all of the assertions in both alternatives".  I can see
four significantly different possible interpretations of this.  Suppose
alternative 1 consists of [A B B C C C] and alternative 2 consists of [B C C D
D].  Then the "intersection" of these could be

* Bag union: [A B B B C C C C C D D] (all occurrences of all assertions from 1
together with all occurrences of all assertions from 2)
* Bag intersection: [B C C] (A is not in both, B occurs (at least) once in
both, C occurs (at least) twice in both, D is not in both)
* Set union: {A B C D} (all assertions from 1 together with all assertions from
2)
* Set intersection: {B C} (all assertions occurring in both 1 and 2).

Though set intersection and set union seem to match the text most closely, it
seems unlikely that this is what is meant, given that alternatives are bags and
multiplicity is in some way significant.

The spec should say explicitly which operation is meant.
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 02:21:01 UTC

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