OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xacml message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [xacml] xacml 1.1 draft 1


Polar did provide a definition, and that definition is what is
currently in the Draft 1.1 Glossary.

I suggest (and I think this is what Tim meant) that the Glossary
contain only the following portion of Polar's definition:

  Type Unification - the method by which two type expressions are
  "unified".  See Section A.6 Expressions for more information.

Then, in Section A.6 Expressions, where the term "type
unification" is used, the remainder of Polar's definition is
inserted as follows:

  ...The resultant type of the <Apply> or <Condition> element
  shall be the resultant type of the function, which may be
  narrowed to a primitive data-type, or a bag of a primitive
  data-type, by type-unification.  [Add following link sentence:]
  The process of type-unification is as follows.  [Polar's
  definition inserted as follows:] The type expressions are
  matched along their structure.  Where a type variable appears
  in one expression it is then "unified" to represent the
  corresponding structure element of the other expression, be it
  another variable or subexpression.  All variable assignments
  must remain consistent in both structures.  Unification fails
  if the two expressions cannot be aligned, either by having
  dissimilar structure, or by having instance conflicts, such as
  a variable needs to represent both "xs:string:" and
  "xs:integer".  For a full explanation of type unification,
  please see [Hancock].  [Then continue with existing text from
  A.6 Expressions:] XACML defines an evaluation result of
  "Indeterminate", which is said to be the result of an invalid
  expression, or an operation error occurring during the
  evaluation of the expression.

-Anne

On 10 July, Polar Humenn writes: RE: [xacml] xacml 1.1 draft 1
 > From: Polar Humenn <polar@syr.edu>
 > To: Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com>
 > Subject: RE: [xacml] xacml 1.1 draft 1
 > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
 > 
 > 
 > I thought I wrote one for the Glossary, didn't I?
 > 
 > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Tim Moses wrote:
 > 
 > > Colleagues - One other thing.  Merely in the interests of stylistic
 > > consistency, why don't we have a succinct definition of "type unification"
 > > in the Glossary, and explain how to do it in that part of the specification
 > > where the concept is used?  All the best.  Tim.
 > > 
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Tim Moses [mailto:tim.moses@entrust.com]
 > > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:40 AM
 > > To: 'Simon Godik'; xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
 > > Subject: RE: [xacml] xacml 1.1 draft 1
 > > 
 > > 
 > > Colleagues - A handful of editorial comments.
 > >  
 > > Lines 4 and 31.  This is a committee spec., not an OASIS spec..
 > > Line 5.  Perhaps, we should just assign a document id.  Let's not wait for
 > > an OASIS numbering system.
 > > Lines 11 - 24.  Needs updating.  Also suggest removing email addresses.
 > > Also Appendix D.
 > > Line 995.  Wrong font.
 > > Line 1950.  " ... be combined by the algorithm specified by ..." becomes "
 > > ... be combined using the algorithm specified by ..."  (Just removes
 > > repetition of "by").
 > > Line 2612.  "The selected node is different from the node types listed
 > > above".  But the list above contains constructor functions (according to
 > > line 2583).
 > > Lines 2635 - 2645.  Non-normative language.  In four place "is" should be
 > > "SHALL be".
 > > Lines 3107 - 3117 and lines 3130 - 3144.  The phrases in the text don't
 > > match the phrases in the table.  e.g. "At least one applicable" in the text,
 > > whereas "At least one rule value is its Effect" in the table.
 > > Lines 3172 - 3193.  I am personally still not happy with this explanation.
 > > I don't have a specific proposal.  But, one signal that something is wrong
 > > comes from the fact that in line 3175 we say that "A named attribute is the
 > > term for the criteria ...".  But, in line 3180 we say that "A named
 > > attribute has specific criteria ...".  Is "attribute instance" more
 > > descriptive than "named attribute"?
 > >  
 > > I should point out that most of these comments apply to the original
 > > editor's work.  All the best.  Tim.
 > >  
 > > 
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Simon Godik [mailto:simon.godik@overxeer.com]
 > > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 5:05 PM
 > > To: xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
 > > Subject: [xacml] xacml 1.1 draft 1
 > > 
 > > 
 > > Here is xacml 1.1 draft 1
 > >  
 > > Please let me know if I left something out.
 > > Simon
 > > 
 > > 
 > 
 > 
 > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/members/leave_workgroup.php

-- 
Anne H. Anderson             Email: Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM
Sun Microsystems Laboratories
1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311     Tel: 781/442-0928
Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA  Fax: 781/442-1692



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]