RE: Action item 5? (Action item 2 from last week)

Option 3 sounds good to me.

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:27 AM
Subject: Action item 5? (Action item 2 from last week)


I'm having trouble correlating action items and numbers referenced.  
But this is in response to:]

Which seems to be a continuation of:

Which stems from my message here:

(Does this still need to be moved to bugzilla?)

First I tracked down back in the minutes and realized that I had  
gotten dropped from the telecon when this AI was assigned. I'd like  
to point out that my *preferred* resolution to this AI is to drop the  
section. So it's a little weird for me to do the writing :) I would  
like to know who supports keeping this section, other than Prasad as  
I derived from the minutes?

In my original email I proposed as a first draft alternative the  
following text (slightly wordsmithed):

OPTION 1: """The goal of the Web Services Policy 1.5 - Framework is  
to provide
mechanisms which enable Web services applications to specify
policy information. Specifically, this specification defines the

	* A framework for domain specific assertions about the
behavior of a Web Service.
	* A set of operators for combining and otherwise qualifying
specific assertions into policies
	* An XML infoset for the concrete expression of such

(Trying to minimally re-edit the section so it didn't give the  
circular goal of producing the specs we produced :))

But the only part of this that is a *goal* is the first sentence.  
(I.e., something that these particular specifications are designed to  
meet against which the documents can be evaluated). A more robust  
statement is:

OPTION 2: """A Web Service policy is a description of a variety of  
requirements on the interaction with a Web Service. In a broad sense,  
WSDL 2.0 allows for the expression of policies with regard to the  
type and sequence of messages sent to and from a Web Service.  
However, this leaves many aspects of Web Service interaction  
undescribed, thus unspecified, such as whether and what form of  
reliable messaging should be used. Particular assertions about a Web  
Services may be combined in a variety of ways to form a policy. For  
example, a Web Service might support a form of encryption, but only  
in conjunction with a specific form of reliable messaging. Thus,  
policy information consists of both simple statements about a Web  
Service, and various logical combinations of those statements.

The goal of the Web Services Policy 1.5 - Framework is to support the  
interoperable expression of a wide range of policies. Since the  
subject matter of specific policy assertions cannot be exhaustively  
characterized in advance, the Web Service Policy 1.5 - Framework  
provides a mechanism for specifying classes of domain specific  
assertions. The framework also provides logical operators for  
combining and refining sets of domain specific assertions, as well as  
an XML infoset for the concrete expression of policies. [Something  
about how Attachment hooks this back to WSDL??]"""

Ether way, I need feedback since I don't think we need a goal  
statement at all :) (And the goal statement seems to need the  
inclusion of how we met the goal. It all feels a bit artificial to me.)

So I include Option 3: """""" (i.e., the empty string :))


Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 01:15:20 UTC