RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions

Note that 2 requires additional information, namely, all the assertions/behaviors in the closed world.  How is this information conveyed to the policy engine?

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:11 PM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions
> 
> 
> Here's my revised estimate of the positions:
> 
> Overview
> There are roughly 3 positions that may be taken on the issue of the
> meaning of assertions in alternative(s).
> 
> 1. AIN Vocabulary flavour:
> Any behaviour not implied by an assertion that is in a vocabulary should
> not be applied (Roughly original chris proposal)
> 
> No proponents. No further elaboration planned.
> 
> 2. AIN Closed world flavour (revised MSFT/IBM proposal):
> Any behaviour not implied by an alternative must not be applied.  Any
> behaviors implied by assertions in an alternative must be applied.
> 
> Questions:
> 1. Is it OK to omit Ignorable="true" Assertion?
> 2. Is it OK to omit Optional="true" Assertion?
> 
> Pros
> This ensures that a provider will provide a "complete" description of
> the behaviors and thus guarantee interop including optional/ignorable.
> 
> Cons
> Pending questions, may limit providers ability to apply behaviors.
> 
> 3. AIN Removal (open world):
> Any behaviour not implied by any assertions in an alternative may or may
> not be applied.  Any behaviors implied by assertions in an alternative
> must be applied.
> 
> Pros
> Perception of "simpler" specification.  Allows service fuller control
> over application of behaviors.
> 
> Cons
> Provider might not provide "complete" description.  Interop is
> guaranteed but optional and/or ignorable behaviors may be missed by
> clients.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
>

Received on Friday, 11 May 2007 12:18:42 UTC