W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > September 2006

Re: Position on various issues

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:14:49 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <2197.>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org

> On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> This mails summarizes positions on some issues, as an input for the WG
>> during the f2f. See
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/
>> 0059.html .
>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3577 Semantics of
>>> successful
>>> intersection determined by domain-specific assertion content
>> I think this is out of scope, since we are not chartered to work on
>> domain-specific content.
>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3599 Need a URI
>>> structure to
>>> refer to WSDL 1.0 definitions, etc.
>> I think this is out of scope. I don't see this required by the
>> charter.
>> Given our hard time schedule, I think we will not be able to tackle
>> this.
> For me "out of scope" means something like "listed as being out of
> scope". Not explicitly enumerated as being in scope is somewhat
> different, and not plausibly following from the explicit enumeration
> is different yet again.

Sorry for being unclear. Please replace "out of scope" with "something we
should not spend time on" in this particular statement.

> I say this because:
> [snip]
>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3621 Formal semantics
>> I think this is out of scope, for the same reason as 3599.
> I see that it's not required. I see that there are schedule issues.
> But this is just a way to specify items 1 and 2 in our charter. So
> it's hard to see that it's *out of scope*.

I think these two items are defined in the current drafts. I don't want to
judge other possible possible specifications. I'm arguing in terms of time
we would need to discuss them.

>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3622 Policy assertion
>>> equivalence and generality
>> I think this is out of scope, for the same reason as 3599.
> If this is out of scope, it's for this reason:
> """The processing model does not define combining or comparing of
> policy assertion parameters."""
> But I don't think it it is necessarily (since it doesn't involve
> poking into assertions). It doesn't seem to be ruled out in the
> explicit out of scope section. It's just another way of combining
> assertions, really.

Here I would say that the notions of equivalence and generality rely on an
implementation of 3621.

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 19:15:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:15 UTC