RE: 3 different assertions diagrams

["Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com>]

Simon,

I'm not sure what you are really asking for.  In the proposal that I made
for toppish assertions, I provided complete schemas and examples.  This
covers 95% of the 2 diagrams I showed.  The top bits (how to structure any
recursion) is the only thing without a sample.  Phil has produced a number
of examples in his examples doc, and I even went as far as to create a
diagram for his proposal.  Eve even created another diagram showing a
different representation.

I really think that at this point submitters have done a good job of
providing material to illustrate their submissions, and even tried to help
clarify other people's submissions.

If you want more work to be done by submitters, please describe exactly and
explicitly what pieces you would like.  I'm personally not in favour of
doing much more editorial work until some decisions are made.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Y. Blackwell [mailto:sblackwell@psoom.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:16 AM
> To: 'Eve L. Maler'; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: 3 different assertions diagrams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@east.sun.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:20 AM
> > To: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: 3 different assertions diagrams
> > 
>  ... major section deleted ...
> > 
> > >2) It is not clear from the diagram (which is one reason I 
> don't find
> > >diagrams useful) how the syntax is implemented.
> > 
> > Sorry, but I find diagrams immensely useful for ensuring that 
> > we all are 
> > talking in the same language, and they're particularly useful 
> > in a group 
> > where most of the expertise is on the security side, not the 
> > XML side.  The 
> > notation I've used isn't complete for implementing a schema, 
> > but given our 
> > discovery of mismatched concepts in last Tuesday's meeting, I 
> > don't think 
> > we're ready for a real schema yet.  We have to ensure that 
> > our rough design 
> > incorporates all the "things" it needs and that we have 
> > agreed on common 
> > names for the different "things."  Then we can agree on a 
> > configuration for 
> > them, and only then can we start writing a schema that won't 
> > have to be 
> > rewritten a bunch of times...  I anticipate that we might be 
> > able to get to 
> > the "configuration" point by the end of the F2F, which would 
> > be a huge 
> > accomplishment.
> 
> I agree with both points. As such, I would find it VERY 
> useful to have at
> least some snippets of syntax associated with diagrams. In 
> general, the
> diagram creator is probably the person with the best mental 
> model to create
> these snippets. Maybe I'm a cripple, but I find it a real 
> mental exercise to
> grasp the model and then create for myself what I think the 
> syntax would
> look like, which then allows be to re-confirm the model, i.e. 
> if I come up
> with a really strange syntax, I assume I have failed to understand the
> model. I also find snippets of syntax useful for determining 
> if everything
> needed is captured. The same goes for DTDs BTW, they are much more
> approachable if provided with an example of actual use.
>