Hi Paul, > there is no requirement that the IRI be resolvable I would also note that the IRI CAN be resolvable. Using resolvable IRIs seems like a natural and interoperable way of dealing with external references. > defining a way to identify a retrieval mechanism could/should be in scope. This seems unnecessary since IRI's already define a way to specify how to resolve them. Supporting more creative resolution mechanisms seems like a Policy vNext feature. Daniel Roth ________________________________ From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Denning Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:47 PM To: public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: Policy Retrieval Algorithms [1] http://tinyurl.com/ot5x5#Policy_References Section 4.3.4 states "...there is no requirement that the IRI be resolvable; retrieval mechanisms are beyond the scope of this specification." I would agree that defining various retrieval mechanisms would be out of scope, but defining a way to identify a retrieval mechanism could/should be in scope. Perhaps adding <proposal> wsp:PolicyReference/@RetrievalAlgorithm This optional URI attribute specifies the Retrieval Algorithm being used to resolve an external policy expression identified by ./@URI. </proposal> Note that this is modeled after the DigestAlgorithm. You would not provide @Digest without specifying the @DigestAlgorithm used to calculate it. @Digest is opaque and you cannot determine the digest algorithm by looking at its value. Likewise, we should treat @URI as opaque and provide an identifier for the algorithm that can be used to resolve the external policy expression. PaulReceived on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 15:28:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:16 UTC