RE: [xacml] [batch #2] counter proposal to 3-04

["Beznosov, Konstantin" <Konstantin.Beznosov@Quadrasis.com>]

I tend to agree with Bill's point that the language should not be
vendor-specific. This is especially important if we want this standard
be ever supported across the industry. 

However, I'm not sure how much we can leverage a specific programming
language without getting trapped into the problem of providing
compilable code. Isn't it better to use some formal, such as  Z or OCL,
language for such things? See
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rej99/suprema/examples_main.htm for an example.

Konstantin

-----Original Message-----
From: bill parducci [mailto:bill@parducci.net]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:14 AM
To: xacml
Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: [batch #2] counter propoposal to 3-04


exactly. this is why i suggest that we select something that is not
associated with any given vendor. my gut feeling is that the combiners
will be relatively simple and that c syntax should be sufficient.

b

On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 07:40, Ken Yagen wrote:
> The fact that it is pseudocode not executable code means that we
should not
> require it be possible to throw it in a JVM and compile it. I believe
the
> proposal was just to provide a standard syntax that most people are
familiar
> with explain the algorithms. You don't need a syntax to write
pseudocode,
> but since this is a collaborative process, it is beneficial to be
> consistent.



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>