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

RE: from the whiteboard f2f dicussion

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:04:05 -0400
To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF743C90B9.C0EF1594-ON852572E5.0047006D-852572E5.0047ABEF@us.ibm.com>
Sergey,

Please see my comments below.

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 05/23/2007 03:44:59 PM:

> Hello
> 
> I?d like to ask few questions (I?m assuming  the requestor initiates
> the intersection) :
> 
> 1. why Lax intersection mode produces duplicates for A & B ?

Take a look at the example in sect 4.5
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#Policy_Intersection


> 2. why the provider?s F is in the effective policy produced by the 
> lax intersection mode ? My understanding of the lax mode is that it 
accepts
> an ignorable provider?s assertion only if it understands it, and in 
> this case it does not, so it tshould be dropped

The intersection does not change aside from the determination of 
compatibility of 
assertions. The statement that follows makes it clear that if the two 
alternatives
are compatible, the result of intersection is still: 
        "an alternative containing all of the assertions in both 
alternatives."

> 3.Why D is in the effective policy produced by the lax intersection 
> mode ? Provider does not know anything about D so the effect of 
> requester putting D in the effective policy can be undefined -

See above, it is ignorable.

> 4. Given 3 should the intersection fail ?

Nope.

> 
> Thanks, Sergey
> 
> 
> 
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris
> Sent: 23 May 2007 17:14
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: from the whiteboard f2f dicussion
> 
> 
> Provider Policy: 
> <Policy> 
>   <A/> 
>   <B/> 
>   <C wsp:Optional="true"/> 
>   <D wsp:Ignorable="true"/> 
> </Policy> 
> 
> Requestor Policy: 
> <Policy> 
>   <A/> 
>   <B/> 
>   <E wsp:Optional="true"/> 
>   <F wsp:Ignorable="true"/> 
> </Policy> 
> 
> Lax intersection yields: 
> <Policy> 
>   <A/> 
>   <B/> 
>   <A/> 
>   <B/> 
>   <D wsp:Ignorable="true"/> 
>   <F wsp:Ignorable="true"/> 
> </Policy> 
> 
> There is a policy <Z/> that the Provider knows about, and a policy <Y/> 
> that the Requester knows about.  It does not matter whether these are 
> optional or ignorable. 
> 
> Style \             WILL       | MUST NOT       | MAY         | WILL NOT 

> AIN Vocabulary      A, B, D, F   E                Y, Z          C 
> AIN Closed          A, B, D, F   E, Y, Z                        C 
> AIN Client Vocab    A, B, D, F   E, Y             Z             C 
> Open World          A, B, D, F                    C, E, Y, Z 
> 
> 
>                                                   Out of Scope 
> Requestor as entity that engages an interaction 
> AIN Client Vocab    A, B, F            E                Z, Y, C, D  
>                                                   Provider as recipient 
> 
> 
> Provider as entity that engages an interaction 
> AIN Client Vocab    A, B, D      C                Z, Y, E, F 
>                                                   Requestor as recipient 

> 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> 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
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 13:04:24 GMT

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