Re: What is the Vocabulary of an Intersected Policy

Thanks, David. Noodling on any impact of the respective entities 
involved may be a future consideration.  I think these comments (yours, 
mine and Ashok's) start to provide some indications of the importance of 
context here.

It may be important now and more so in the future, not only the role 
(client, server, other) but other aspects that could be typed (i.e. 
obligation). Thanks.

>David Orchard wrote: Monica,
>For a while, I thought the situation might be even trickier because of
>these open-world assumptions.  I'm just thinking this through a bit, but
>I had thought it might be that there are two priorities of vocabularies,
>the service and the client.  Any vocabulary types in the service would
>need to be in the vocabulary of the effective policy, because the
>service has clearly made a decision about including them or not.  But a
>client vocabulary type (not known by the service) perhaps shouldn't be
>in the effective policy because the service has made no decision for or
>agin the particular type.  
>I then tried to think of both ignorable and non-ignorable, and it seems
>to me there's actually no need to exclude client vocabulary types.
>Imagine the client knows about doing ws-addressing but the service
>doesn't.  The service has not said it will or will not do ws-a, but
>having it in the effective vocabulary (or not) doesn't change the
>effective policy which would say no ws-a.  However, imagine the client
>knows about the hypothetical EndOfLife assertion and service doesn't.
>Again, the effective policy will say no EOL and the vocabulary type
>would have EOL, and effective policy is still true.  
>At this point, I don't see a need to differentiate between client and
>service vocabulary types for purposes of the effective policy
>vocabulary.  Anybody have any other thoughts on this?

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:08:12 UTC