- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 09:21:48 -0700
- To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Chris, to address your response and leave open with a question and observation. >>For: >> "...Instead, we could simply state that the behavior implied by an >> assertion that is absent from a given alternative is not to be >> applied in the context of the attached policy subject when that >> alternative is engaged"... >> >> martin: 3. What effect does this have on a domain's capability to restrict or not restrict that this statement (or provide semantics around it)? Related to 2. >> >> >ferris: I'm not sure that I understand the question here. Are you asking whether a domain gets to say whether a nested policy is a constraint on the parent assertion (much as WS-Addressing has done)? If so, then I do not believe >that the proposal affects this... I think it reinforces it. > > I am conflicted if your text is any clearer in specifying whether or not we mean absence=negation. Would suggest if we allow it to be, not be or we are neutral (my preference), we should be EXPLICIT. This would apply where <wsp:Policy/> (no qualification is required for a nested policy expression) exists or a policy assertion is absent. The Primer explicitly infers we are currently NEUTRAL - no claims. Thanks.
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 16:21:11 UTC