Fw: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions

Ashok,
help me understand...... have we come full circle? isn't this absence is 
negation?

orignial policy:

P                                                                  R
a                               a
c ignorable                     b optional

alternatives: 

a                               a
 
                                a
                                b

intersection produces  "a"

P must do a
P must not do B
R must do a
R must not do C

did I miss something?

Maryann




"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
05/18/2007 10:20 AM

To
Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions






Chris, I don’t see the need for directionality.  How about this:
 
P and R exchange policies and decide on an alternative.
 
P must do what’s mandated by the selected alternative.
P cannot do what was in R’s policy but was not selected.
R must do what’s mandated by the selected alternative.
R cannot do what was in P’s policy but was not selected.
 
No other claims.
All the best, Ashok 

From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:23 AM
To: Ashok Malhotra
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions
 

Ashok, 

Maybe "initiating entity" is unclear. Basically, I intend it to be the 
entity that engages an interaction 
by retrieving the other side's policy and intersecting it. 

If we expand this with a request/response MEP 

Requestor = R 
Provider = P 

If A is in R's policy, but not in P's policy R does not engage that 
behavior. 
If A is in P's policy, but not in R's policy, P does not engage that 
behavior 
If P does not use A's policy to engage the interaction, then everything is 
out of scope. 
One would presume that P would deal with the behaviors represented in the 
messages received from R in a manner consistent with their specification. 

I recognize that the intersection algorithm is direction independent. The 
proposed 
language does not affect intersection, it just places constraints on the 
entity that 
uses the intersected policy to engage an interaction, limiting the set of 
behaviors 
applied to those that are implied by assertions IN the intersected policy 
and (possibly, but we 
don't say anything about them since they are out of scope) those which are 
NOT IN 
the initiating entity's policy. 

Those behaviors that are IN the initiating entity's policy but NOT IN the 
intersected policy 
are RIGHT OUT:-) 

Make sense? 

Cheers, 

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 

"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 05/17/2007 07:06:31 
PM:

> Chris: 
> In your latest note in this thread you proposed 
>   
> Proposed text added to section 4.5: 
> 
>       If an initiating entity includes a policy assertion type A in 
> its policy, and this policy assertion type A 
>         does not occur in an intersected policy, then the initiating
> entity does not apply the behavior implied by 
>         assertion type A. 
>   
> I have two concerns about this proposal: 
>   
> 1. It does not say anything about the policy of the responder.  Is 
> the behavior different in the other direction?  I think not. 
> 2. The policy intersection algorithm is direction independent.  This
> proposal introduces direction dependency and I’m wary of that.  If 
> we go that way then I would like to bring up the complex of ideas 
> that say that the initiator expresses constraints – what you must 
> do, and the responder expresses capabilities – what I can do and 
> intersection works differently if viewed from the two directions. 
> If we go that route then this leads naturally into the wildcard 
> matching that DaveO and I have been proposing. 
>   
> All the best, Ashok