- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:24:26 +0100
- To: fsasaki@w3.org
- Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
On Sep 12, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote: >> On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote: [snip] > Sorry for being unclear. Please replace "out of scope" with > "something we > should not spend time on" in this particular statement. Ok, thanks for the clarification. >> 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 haven't pressed *too* hard yet, but I am, in general, a bit leary about this sort of informal specification. But that's me. > I don't want to > judge other possible possible specifications. That's fair enough. > I'm arguing in terms of time > we would need to discuss them. That's reasonable, just distinct from "out of scope". >>>> 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. Not necessarily, since I'm talking only of explicit equivalence and generality between *assertions*. But if the current specifications don't let us derive equivalence between policies (or generality), then I'm very worried about them. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 19:24:34 UTC