RE: AIN, NOBI and composition

Dan:
I'm sorry, but that's not how I read it.

My reading is that you CANNOT apply assertions that are not in the selected alternative.  That, to me feels like negation.

I think we shd get behind Monica's explicit wording that eliminates the fuzz factor.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Roth
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:12 PM
> To: David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: AIN, NOBI and composition
> 
> 
> This is exactly the problem with tying negation semantics to the absence
> of assertion types (AIN).
> 
> IBM's proposal fixes this by simply saying you do what you assert and
> nothing else (NOBI).
> 
> Daniel Roth
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 3:23 PM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: AIN, NOBI and composition
> 
> 
> I wonder about AIN, NOBI, etc. and composition.
> 
> Imagine that WS-I produces an assertion that says a "RSPAssertion" means
> RMAssertion and Security, perhaps exactly one of
> messageSecurity|transportsecurity.  What's the meaning when some of the
> assertions that are in the composition are missing?  For example, I just
> say RSPAssertion.  I don't say RMAssertion, though RMAssertion is in the
> vocabulary.  If I get an intersection that says RSPAssertion but not
> RMAssertion, AIN has the implication that you shouldn't apply
> RMAssertion yet RSPAssertion does.
> 
> We don't say anything about whether an assertion that means a behaviour
> "trumps" the lack of such an assertion.
> 
> With AIN, there's a problem.  Without AIN, there's no problem because
> there's no conflict.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dav3e
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 23:31:39 UTC