RE: Update for 4041

Umit,

 

My comment asked for rephrasing the sentence (to change the "truthful" part)
or removing it. Neither was accomplished by your editorial refinement of
Maryann's proposal. I am not sure what explanation you are speaking about
but, the problem, not necessarily the "big" problem as you put it, (sorry I
am not good with hyperbolas :) is the following:

 

The text states:

 

The Ignorable marker allows them (policy providers) to be truthful.

 

My point is that, just because the "ignorable" marker is attached to some
assertions, it does not make the policy providers "truthful".

 

"I do prefer" (notice the lower case :-) to take out the "truthful" part or
rephrase it not to go towards injecting "truth serum" into assertion
providers aspect. 

 

Anyway we will discuss this at the WG level now. 

 

Lastly my follow-up on this originally was to make sure you noticed the
comment I had in that space and as perhaps the reason why Frederick did not
include that sentence. I did not expect you to get so excited :-)  

 

Cheers!

 

  _____  

From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:40 PM
To: Prasad Yendluri; WS-Policy Editors W3C
Subject: RE: Update for 4041

 

Prasad, 

 

I am not contradicting your comment. You wrote in your comments that you
sent to Frederick that either rephrase this or delete this sentence. Then
Maryann sent her comments and I proposed the change in order to address ALL
the issues that existed with the sentence. That is my reasoning and I DO
PREFER the sentence not to be deleted. As I have said in my previous email,
we discussed this topic in a long conversation in the wg emails that
providers should be advertising the behaviors correctly. Should I have said
"correctly" instead of "truthfully" or should have used the word
"truthiness" following Colbert ;-) 

 

I really do not see what the "big" problem is and I have offered the
explanation in my previous email. 

 

--umit

 

 

 

 


  _____  


From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, Jan 10, 2007 12:17 PM
To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Prasad Yendluri; WS-Policy Editors W3C
Subject: RE: Update for 4041

You are contradicting my comment that Frederick accepted. That was the
reason it was not included in the updated proposal.

I wanted to be sure you were aware of it as you did not offer any
explanation as to "why you want it put back", other than as an editorial
refinement over what Maryann has provided in your review.  What is your
reason?

 


  _____  


From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:13 PM
To: Prasad Yendluri; WS-Policy Editors W3C
Subject: RE: Update for 4041

 

You suggested rephrasing it in your review, and I provided a rephrase. I am
not understanding what you are getting at. That is exactly what I am doing. 

 

--umit

 

 


  _____  


From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, Jan 10, 2007 11:54 AM
To: Yalcinalp, Umit; WS-Policy Editors W3C
Subject: RE: Update for 4041

Hi Umit

 

 I had an explicit comment about the "being truthful" sentence. Please see
my comments here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-eds/2007Jan/0019.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-eds/2007Jan/0019.html>
and Frederick's follow up at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-eds/2007Jan/0020.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-eds/2007Jan/0020.html>


 

Regards,

Prasad

 


  _____  


From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp, Umit
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:48 AM
To: WS-Policy Editors W3C
Subject: Update for 4041

 

Frederick,

 

Could you add the following sentence 

 

{It is incumbent of Providers to declare the behaviors that will be engaged
using policies although those behaviors may not exhibit wirelevel
manifestations. The Ignorable marker allows them to be truthful. }

 

after 

 

{Using the Optional attribute would be incorrect in this scenario, since it
would indicate that the behavior would not occur if the alternative without
the assertion were selected.}

 

in the last draft you sent out today. 

 

 

This was captured in the discussion below. I do not want that to be
forgotten because there was a lot of discussion in the wg about this. 

 

Thank you. 

 

--umit

 

 

 

 


  _____  


From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp, Umit
Sent: Monday, Jan 08, 2007 1:29 PM
To: Maryann Hondo; Frederick Hirsch
Cc: Hirsch Frederick; WS-Policy Editors W3C;
public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: 1st draft on primer ignorable

Maryann, 

 

I just reviewed the comments you sent. I believe that they are mostly
editorial in improving the content of the proposal as you have the captured
the hallway conversations. I am fine with the revised text, but I have one
suggestion for the last sentence that says 

 

{It is incumbent on Providers  to declare their policies  and the Ignorable
marker allows them to be truthful.}

 

how about the following instead:

 

{It is incumbent of Providers to declare the behaviors that will be engaged
using policies although those behaviors may not exhibit wirelevel
manifestations. The Ignorable marker allows them to be truthful. 

 

--umit

 

 


  _____  


From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Maryann Hondo
Sent: Monday, Jan 08, 2007 12:39 PM
To: Frederick Hirsch
Cc: Hirsch Frederick; WS-Policy Editors W3C;
public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: 1st draft on primer ignorable


Frederick, 
I have some comments on the text. 
Sorry to have been so late in getting them to you and I'm not sure how 
much they impact other comments you received.  Sorry for the delay. 
Since I wasn't in the hall conversations, I'm not sure if my understanding
matches 
everyone else's and I'm interested in knowing if I've "got it". 
Thanks. 

Maryann 




Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org 

01/05/2007 09:54 AM 


To

WS-Policy Editors W3C <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org> 


cc

Hirsch Frederick <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> 


Subject

1st draft on primer ignorable

 


 

 




Attached is 1st draft on adding ignorable to primer. I think we can  
do this simply by adding two new sections as noted.

Please let me know if you think I should add it in today to get it  
into the draft for the F2F, or if you have any other suggestion or  
comment.

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia