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

RE: FW: [Bug 4552] Should the word "collection" be changed to something more specific?

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:51:15 -0700
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E543152A5249@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> doesn't an implementation have to determine if two assertions are the same when doing a policy intersection?

Not quite.

For two policy assertions to be compatible they must have the same QName. And, if either assertion has a nested policy, both assertions must have a nested policy expression and the nested policy expressions must be compatible. The two assertions may have different parameters. Assertion parameters do not affect the outcome of policy intersection.

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:39 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu; David Hull
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: FW: [Bug 4552] Should the word "collection" be changed to something more specific?

Maybe I'm missing something: doesn't an implementation have to determine if two assertions are the same when doing a policy intersection? I can't see how you can do a policy intersection WITHOUT determining if assertions are the same.

I think I'd have a better understanding if someone explained the reasoning behind wanting to put two copies in the intersection result. And I doubt I'm the only one.

Tony Rogers
tony.rogers@ca.com<blocked::mailto:tony.rogers@ca.com>


________________________________
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 1:01
To: David Hull
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: FW: [Bug 4552] Should the word "collection" be changed to something more specific?
It is unclear from this mail thread re why the framework should force implementations to figure out if two alternatives are same and filter them out? Any technical reasons?

To be super clear, the quote below is not from me :-)

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:48 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: [Bug 4552] Should the word "collection" be changed to something more specific?

Asir Vedamuthu wrote:

the blanket statement that "collection"

means "unordered collection with multiple occurrences allowed" is

inappropriate.





Multiple occurrences of the same alternative are okay. The framework treats them as separate alternatives. Can't imagine the technical reasons on why the framework should force implementations to figure out if two alternatives are same and filter them out.


You're defining semantics here, not implementation.  If duplicates make no difference, you have set semantics.  If they do, you have bag semantics.  If an implementation wants to keep duplicates around, that's its business.

By specifying set semantics you are saying that, e.g.,

<ExactlyOne>
  <All><Foo/></All>
</ExactlyOne>

means the same as

<ExactlyOne>
  <All><Foo/></All>
  <All><Foo/></All>
</ExactlyOne>

and therefore that no one should write code that depends on one or the other form specifically.  Similarly, no one should depend on distinctions between <All><Foo/><Bar/></All> and <All><Bar/><Foo/></All>.  That doesn't force implementations to maintain alternatives in some canonical order, it just defines part of the contract for policy authors.

While we're on the topic, it would be good to have a specific use case in which <All><Foo/><Foo/></All> is meant to be different from <All><Foo/></All>.  If there aren't any, then it would be better to replace "collection" with "set" throughout.  For example, the question of what does "all of the assertions in both alternatives" mean goes away; you just say "union".



If implementers would like to optimize their implementations the framework does not preclude filtering multiple occurrences of the same alternative.



Regards,



Asir S Vedamuthu

Microsoft Corporation





-----Original Message-----

From: public-ws-policy-qa-request@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-policy-qa-request@w3.org> [mailto:public-ws-policy-qa-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org<mailto:bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:14 AM

To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org>

Subject: [Bug 4552] Should the word "collection" be changed to something more specific?





http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4552





dmh@tibco.com<mailto:dmh@tibco.com> changed:



           What    |Removed                     |Added

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 CC|                            |dmh@tibco.com<mailto:dmh@tibco.com>









------- Comment #1 from dmh@tibco.com<mailto:dmh@tibco.com>  2007-05-11 15:13 -------

My understanding from the list discussion is that policies are *sets* of

alternatives, not bags, in that it does not matter how many times an

alternative appears, so long as it appears.



If so, then the blanket statement that "collection" means "unordered collection

with multiple occurrences allowed" is inappropriate.  If policies are allowed

to contain the same alternative multiple times, then someone has to say what

the differences is between, e.g., an alternative occurring once and the same

alternative occurring twice.



Conversely, if there is no difference, then say so explicitly.  That is,

instead of saying "A policy is a collection (unordered, multiples allowed) of

alternatives where multiplicity doesn't matter", say directly that "A policy is

a set of alternatives".
Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 02:51:44 GMT

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