- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:48:59 +0100
- To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
On Aug 30, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Ashok Malhotra wrote: > Bijan: > I don't understand your comment about side-effecting assertions. Well, part is that I don't think assertions in the normal sense have (significant) side-effects. > Pretty > much all WS-Policy assertions have side effects as they affect the > message content. Don't you mean that they *constrain* message content? That's a bit different than altering them. Are policies procedural or declarative? Now, there might be some other bit of the system that does something according to a policy. > Also, re. the example, it is well accepted that WS-Policy will be > used to specify > logging and auditing of messages. Yes, but it seems leap to then have the *Policy* log and audit the message (I don't even know what it means). Now, perhaps you mean that a policy should be capable of expressing fairly fine constraints about logging and auditing. That seems fine, of course. But I would think we'd want something a bit more explicit and to cleanly distinguish *what* should be logged from *how* it should be logged. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 13:49:38 UTC