[Bug 4861] Section 5.6 needs to be refactored and rewritten

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4861

           Summary: Section 5.6 needs to be refactored and rewritten
           Product: WS-Policy
           Version: FPWD
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Guidelines
        AssignedTo: fsasaki@w3.org
        ReportedBy: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
         QAContact: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org


Section 5.6 [1] needs to be refactored and rewritten.

1. There is no such thing as an "optional assertion". By that, I mean that all
assertions, because they may be included or omitted from a policy and/or an
alternative(s) in that policy are, by definition optional in a sense. Rather
than characterize this as considering whether an assertion is or is not
optional, I think that the guidelines should include a best practice that
recommends that assertion authors enable compact authoring style by allowing
the wsp:Optional attribute to be added to the assertion.

Proposal: replace section 5.6.1 with:

The Policy Framework provides two modes of authoring policy expressions:
compact and normal form. One of the mechanisms that the Policy Framework
provides to policy authors for purposes of writing compact policy expressions
is the wsp:Optional attribute. Assertion Authors should allow for the use of
the wsp:Optional attribute in the XML outline and/or schema definition of an
assertion.

Best Practice 16: Assertion Authors should allow use of wsp:Optional attribute

An assertion's XML outline and/or schema definition should allow the use of the
wsp:Optional attribute so as to enable policy authors to compose compact policy
expressions.

2. section 5.6.2 makes an important point, but this point is buried in some (I
believe) incorrect analysis (see above) related to "optional assertions". The
point that needs to be preserved in the guidelines is that assertion authors
need to consider that because the framework does not provide for a means of
signaling which alternative was selected, that they may resort to engaging a
behavior (or not) in the context of a message exchange pattern. The examples
cited, rm and mtom, are good ones, because the provide the reader with working
examples. However, I don't think that the point being made belongs in a section
related to wsp:Optional.

Proposal: remove section 5.6.2

I will follow this up with an attempt to capture the important point in the
section related to policy attachment points.

[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#optional-policy-assertion

Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 16:20:33 UTC