Re: Treatment of optional/ignorable attributes in framework and primer

Hi Chris

Thanks to everyone involved for touching on this topic during the concall.

I do NOT plan to open any bug against the Framework. I'd like to have some discussion
in this thread and if we can find that some text can be adjusted then I'd be happy for whatever change we might agree upon be applied in v.next. If we can get some agreement that some clarification text can be applied to the primer only in this version then it would be good but if not then we can discuss it further afterwards.

Cheers, Sergey
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Christopher B Ferris 
  To: Sergey Beryozkin 
  Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org ; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:55 PM
  Subject: Re: Treatment of optional/ignorable attributes in framework and primer



  Sergey, 

  We discussed this briefly on today's call. I just wanted to confirm with you that you do NOT have intent on this 
  becoming an issue with the Framework specification. 

  Cheers, 

  Christopher Ferris
  STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
  email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
  blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
  phone: +1 508 234 2986 

  public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 06/13/2007 01:44:17 PM:

  > Hi 
  >   
  > I wanted to start some discussion on what I feel some 
  > ambiguity/assymetry in the way optional and ignorable attributes are
  > covered in the framework and the primer. I don't want to open a bug 
  > and open a can of worms :-) but just to see if at least there's some
  > agreement on what I'm going to say. If yes then perhaps some 
  > primer/framework text can be updated in this version of the spec or 
  > in the v.next 
  >   
  > Framework : wsp:optional is just a syntactic shortcut, indicates the
  > assertion will be present in one alternative and not in the other one 
  > Primer :       wsp:optional expresses the capability/behaviour the 
  > client may optionally engage 
  >   
  > When a provider uses wsp:optional assertions the primer's 
  > description is more applicable, the policy author thinks how the 
  > service can be accessed by the clients and uses wsp:optional 
  > assertions when appropriate. The framework description has a 
  > secondary role when a policy author creates a policy on the provider's side. 
  > When a requester uses wsp:optional assertions only the framework 
  > description applies, the primer's decription does not seem to have 
  > any sense on the requester's side. 
  >   
  > Framework : wsp:ignorable indicated this assertion is ignorable for 
  > the intersection purposes 
  > Primer : "The wsp:Ignorable attribute allows providers to clearly 
  > indicate which policy assertions indicate behaviors that don't 
  > manifest on the wire and may not be of concern to a requester when 
  > determining policy compatibility. Using the wsp:Optional attribute 
  > would be incorrect in this scenario, since it would indicate that 
  > the behavior would not occur if the alternative without the 
  > assertion were selected. " 
  >   
  > Similar to the way I described providers and requesters deal with 
  > wsp:optional... 
  >   
  > Any comments ? 
  >   
  >   
  > Thanks, Sergey 
  >   
  >   
  > 
  > ----------------------------
  > IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
  > Registered Number: 171387
  > Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland

----------------------------
IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
Registered Number: 171387
Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland