Re: [xacml] Principals in Applicability - was RE: [xacml] Version 0.7

[bill parducci <bill@parducci.net>]

having personally struggled with the general usage of the term 'target' 
in the past, i too am comfortable with the concept of 'Target Values' 
and 'Target Mapping' as defined by hal's previous note.

i also agree with tim's assertion that policies should map to fully 
qualified namespaces. i think that this will be necessary to maintain 
any hopes of interoperability.


b


Tim Moses wrote:

> Hal - I had promoted the term "applicability", not because I felt it was 
> preferable to your proposed term: "target", but because we needed a term 
> for this concept, and I did not understand that "target" was intended to 
> serve exactly this purpose.  Personally, I would be happy to switch to 
> "target".
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with the points you make in this message.
> 
>  
> 
> I was, however, thinking that (to pick up your very final point) XML 
> documents, to which these policies control access, would have fully 
> qualified namespaces to identify their type.  Then the policy (even if 
> it is attached) would "target" that namespace.  This approach, of 
> course, means that the policy applies uniformly to all instances of the 
> type.  We should probably debate the use of the reserved word "this".
> 
>  
> 
> All the best.  Tim.