RE: NEW ISSUE (3638) Need to be able to specify ordering between assertions

Bijan:
I don't understand your comment about side-effecting assertions.  Pretty
much all WS-Policy assertions have side effects as they affect the message content.
Also, re. the example, it is well accepted that WS-Policy will be used to specify 
logging and auditing of messages.


All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:08 AM
> To: Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE (3638) Need to be able to specify 
> ordering between assertions
> 
> I'm a bit confused by this desiderata. There seem to be two casees
> mentioned:
> 
> 	1) The need for a determinate order for signing/verification.
> 
> In this case the order doesn't *mean* anything. That is, we 
> can have equivalent policies that differ merely by the order 
> of assertions in an <all>. To ensure that we are using the 
> authenticated policy, obviously we need the signed one, but, 
> in a sense, we should be free to substitute any equivalent one.
> 
> 	2) Order with semantic import.
> 
> I don't know what this is except to look at the example.
> 
> On Aug 29, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> [snip]
> > For example, consider an assertion that adds something to a message.
> > Perhaps a timestamp.  We may want to say that the timestamp 
> is added 
> > before a log record is written.
> [snip]
> 
> But I have trouble wrapping my head around an *assertion* 
> that does anything but state something :)
> 
> Side-effecting assertions seem like real trouble. Consider Prolog vs.
> SQL.
> 
> It could (must) mess with distribution and other properties 
> of operators.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 13:38:23 UTC