RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602

Yakov:
I prefer option 1 because it makes it clear that the assertion should NOT
be applied.  We should also add a pointer here to an example such as the one
I proposed at the f2f which would appear later in the document after optional
and alternative has been defined.

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sverdlov, Yakov [mailto:Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:25 AM
> To: Monica J. Martin; Ashok Malhotra; mhondo@us.ibm.com
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602
> 
> Action:
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01
> 
> I think in the spirit of the policy assertion definition, we 
> may consider referencing the behavior represented by the assertion. 
> 
> Modify the proposal in the email below from:
> "When an assertion whose type is part of the policy 
> vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the 
> provider does not apply that policy assertion in that policy 
> alternative."
> 
> To:
> Option 1:
> "When an assertion whose type is part of the policy 
> vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the 
> behavior indicated by that policy assertion is not applied to 
> a subject in that policy alternative"
> 
> Option 2:
> "When an assertion whose type is part of the policy 
> vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the 
> behavior [of an entity] indicated by that policy assertion is 
> considered as undefined in that policy alternative"
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Yakov Sverdlov
> CA
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Monica J. Martin
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:49 AM
> To: Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Suggested text to close Bug 3602
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> ><new text>
> >For example, if there is a policy with an assertion marked with
> "optional='true'" this puts the assertion in the vocabulary 
> of the policy.  When this policy is normalized the assertion 
> appears in one alternative and not in the other.  If the 
> alternative that does not include the assertion is chosen 
> then it is explicitly prohibited to apply the assertion as 
> the assertion is part of the policy vocabulary.
> >  
> >
> mm1: Ashok, where this text falls in the specification, it is 
> premature to discuss wsp:Optional, normalization and XML 
> representation. In addition, this text duplicates existing 
> material.  We could revise the existing text in Section 3.2:
> 
>     Change from: An assertion whose type is part of the policy's
>     vocabulary but is not included in an alternative is explicitly
>     prohibited by the alternative.
>     Change to: When an assertion whose type is part of the policy
>     vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, 
> the provider
>     does not apply that policy assertion in that policy alternative.
> 
> An option to consider rather than another example is to 
> reference further sections and include more detail in the 
> Guideline and/or Primer documents. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 15:34:59 UTC