Re: [xacml] XACML 2.0 errata and 3.0

[Erik Rissanen <erik@axiomatics.com>]

What should the identiers for the two relevant data types be in XACML? I
have so many choices here. :-)

In XACML 2.0 OS they are:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xquery-operators-20020816#dayTimeDuration
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xquery-operators-20020816#yearMonthDuration

They were changed in the errata (and the ITU-T version):

urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:2.0:data-type:dayTimeDuration
urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:2.0:data-type:yearMonthDuration

Based on the current W3C recommendation we could have:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-functions-20070123/#dt-yearMonthDuration
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-functions-20070123/#dt-dayTimeDuration

These are resolvable URLs pointing to type definitions.

We could also use a version independent variant:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#dt-yearMonthDuration
http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#dt-dayTimeDuration

These are also resolvable and will point to the latest version of the
document.

(Note the "#dt-" and how that wasn't there in the XACML 2.0 version. We
could create yet another variant by removing it.)

Another interesting twist to it is that the xquery document calls them
xs:yearMonthDuration, so they treat them like they are in the XML Schema
namespace. So, we could perhaps do this as well:

|http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema|#yearMonthDuration
|http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema|#dayTimeDuration

What do people think?

My preference are these:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#dt-yearMonthDuration
http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#dt-dayTimeDuration

Note that this will break the names compared to the 2.0 OS, but I
presume it is ok since the errata was also breaking them.

Regards,
Erik


Anne Anderson - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> I recommend referring to the now-approved XPath and XQuery standards.
> Referencing the standard means people can re-use standard
> implementations of the XPath and XQuery functions with confidence.  It
> also makes our own specification simpler and less prone to introduced
> errors.
>
> Regards,
> Anne
>
> Erik Rissanen wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> For the next 3.0 core draft I was planning to incorporate all the 2.0
>> errata. Most of it concerns the definition of some data types and
>> functions copied from xpath/xquery.
>>
>> The copying was made to accommodate ITU since xpath/xquery was not
>> approved at the time. Anne raised the issue earlier about going back to
>> referring to the xpath/xquery, rather than copying text, now that they
>> have been approved.
>>
>> What should I do it for the next 3.0 draft? Should I copy text like the
>> current 2.0 errata, or should I refer to the approved version of
>> xpath/xquery?
>>
>> What should I do for future 2.0 errata? Should I keep the copied text,
>> or should we revert back to referring to xpath/xquery?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Erik
>>
>