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

Re: proposal for 5218

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:47:23 -0400
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFEB7632BC.BE5A0210-ON85257383.0060F2D1-85257383.006194FB@us.ibm.com>
Asir and I took an AI to propose a resolution to issue 5218 [1]

I believe that the following change addresses my issues and is also 
acceptable to Asir.

The essence of the proposal is to remove the last sentence in the BP as 
follows:

Best Practice 22: Describe Semantics of Multiple Assertions of Same Type 
Assertion Authors should specify the semantics of multiple instances of 
the same policy assertion type in the same policy alternative and the 
semantics of parameters and nested policy (if any) when there are multiple 
instances of a policy assertion type in the same policy alternative 
regardless of the mechanism used to attach them to a policy subject. 

Omitting the side issue of what happens when there are no parameters 
and/or nested policy would be better than leaving that sentence in, as 
that only (IMO) confuses the 
issue by saying nothing about the case when there ARE parameters and/or 
nested policy. 

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986

public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 10/24/2007 11:35:32 AM:

> 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5218 
> 
> If there are multiple instances of a policy assertion type in the same
> policy alternative that have, if present, compatible nested policies and 
the 
> policy assertion authors have not specified the semantics of 
> repetition of policy
> assertions of that type then that repetition is simply redundancy,
> and the multiple assertions of that type within a policy alternative 
have
> the same meaning as a single assertion of the type within the policy
> alternative. 
> 
> Rationale: 
> 
> IMO, it matters none whether the assertion type can carry parameters
> and/or nested policy. The key is that any nested 
> policy present on the multiple assertions is compatible. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
> phone: +1 508 234 2986
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 17:47:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:53 GMT