- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 15:31:05 +0000
- To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4553 Summary: Exact meaning of "all of the assertions in both alternatives" Product: WS-Policy Version: CR Platform: All URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws- policy/2007May/0019.html OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Framework AssignedTo: fsasaki@w3.org ReportedBy: dmh@tibco.com QAContact: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org It is not clear which of three operations is meant in the statement (in section 4.5) that "If two alternatives are compatible, their intersection is an alternative containing all of the assertions in both alternatives". I can see four significantly different possible interpretations of this. Suppose alternative 1 consists of [A B B C C C] and alternative 2 consists of [B C C D D]. Then the "intersection" of these could be * Bag union: [A B B B C C C C C D D] (all occurrences of all assertions from 1 together with all occurrences of all assertions from 2) * Bag intersection: [B C C] (A is not in both, B occurs (at least) once in both, C occurs (at least) twice in both, D is not in both) * Set union: {A B C D} (all assertions from 1 together with all assertions from 2) * Set intersection: {B C} (all assertions occurring in both 1 and 2). Though set intersection and set union seem to match the text most closely, it seems unlikely that this is what is meant, given that alternatives are bags and multiplicity is in some way significant. The spec should say explicitly which operation is meant.
Received on Friday, 11 May 2007 15:31:08 UTC