- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 07:47:29 -0400
- To: Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFCBA04876.662DE1DD-ON852572D7.003B0478-852572D7.0040AB40@us.ibm.com>
+1 Christopher Ferris STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris phone: +1 508 377 9295 public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 05/09/2007 03:14:52 PM: > > We think these sentences are different. Let me try to explain using > Dave's RSPAssertion example. > > The RSPAssertion maps to two behaviors: (RM, Security) > The RMAssertion maps to one behavior: (RM) > > OK, so based on the two sentences below, what does the following > policy mean? What behaviors does the policy subject require?: > > <Policy><RSPAssertion/></Policy> > > The first sentence says that the policy means the policy subject > requires (RM, Security). Full stop. > > The second sentence says that the policy means the policy subject > requires (RM, Security, NOT(RM), NOT(Addressing), NOT(MTOM), ... etc > for all absent assertions) > > The second sentence results in a very confusing situation: What does > it mean to do RM and NOT(RM)? Does the absence of the RMAssertion > cancel out the RM-ness of the RSPAssertion? Is the policy self- > contradicting? This is definitely not the semantic we want for > policy alternatives. > > The first sentence results in a clear and simple interpretation of > the policy and its alternatives. > > Daniel Roth > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 9:24 AM > To: Daniel Roth; Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org > Subject: RE: AIN, NOBI and composition > > We continue to talk past each other. I think the following two > sentences are equivalent: > "No behaviors are to be applied for the alternative other than the > behaviors specified by the assertions in the alternative" > "The absence of an assertion means that the behaviour specified by the > absent assertion should not be applied". > > Cheers, > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Roth [mailto:Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:52 PM > > To: David Orchard; Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org > > Subject: RE: AIN, NOBI and composition > > > > > AIN Closed flavour: Any assertion not in an alternative > > should not be > > > applied (revised chris proposal) > > > > Chris' revised proposal doesn't say anything about the > > absence of assertions. It simply says that no behaviors are > > to be applied for the alternative other than the behaviors > > specified by the assertions in the alternative. > > > > Daniel Roth > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:42 PM > > To: Ashok Malhotra; Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org > > Subject: RE: AIN, NOBI and composition > > > > Well, I think we need to have clear wording for all the "alternatives" > > before the working group. > > > > The way I see it: > > AIN Vocabulary flavour: Any assertion not in a vocabulary > > should not be applied (Original chris proposal) AIN Closed > > favour: Any assertion not in an alternative should not be > > applied (revised chris proposal) AIN Removal: Any assertion > > not in alternative means nothing. It may or may not be applied. > > > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:29 PM > > > To: Daniel Roth; David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org > > > Subject: 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 > > > > messageSecurity|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 Thursday, 10 May 2007 11:47:52 UTC