- From: Dale Moberg <dmoberg@us.axway.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 14:46:21 -0700
- To: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
- Cc: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Message-ID: <97085FEE4C8BDB4AB6FA3E770EBC79BB0110F2ED@mail1.cyclonecommerce.com>
Chris Ferris proposed [2] a change that reads: [Definition: A policy alternative is a potentially empty collection of policy assertions <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#policy_assertion> .] An alternative with zero assertions indicates no behaviors. An alternative with one or more assertions indicates behaviors implied by those, and only those assertions. No other behaviors are to be applied for the alternative. The rest of the edits in the original proposal [1] remain unchanged. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0003.html I would propose the following modification that might capture the position of those concerned with leaving detailed semantics of domain policy assertions under the control of domain policy language designers. There may be others who would advocate this position for other reasons. [Definition: A policy alternative is a potentially empty collection of policy assertions <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#policy_assertion> .] An alternative with zero assertions indicates no behaviors. An alternative with one or more assertions indicates behaviors implied by those, and only those assertions. The inclusion of the phrase "implied by" addresses an objection I made in [3], so it sounds reasonable to me! I would also endorse moving the interoperability guidance motivating the inclusion of the statement "No other behaviors are to be applied for the alternative." and placing it into the guidelines document. Exactly how that guidance is to be captured is, unfortunately, not something I have seen formulated yet. I think it is something like "Stick to the policy alternative implementation selected by the policy consumer (and present in the policy provider policy!) and do not introduce other, potentially conflicting or unsupported, functionality that might mess things up." [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0055.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0108.html
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 21:46:46 UTC