Re: [sca-policy] Issue 30 - Is the policy (specified in intentMap) from allof multiple qualified intents in effect? - PROPOSAL

[David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>]

Good catch.  I was surprised that the mutually exclusive intents text
didn't cover this, but I never thought to verify that it was applied
correctly.

I agree that we can close 30 with no action as you said.

Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093  or  8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com


                                                                           
             Mike Edwards                                                  
             <mike_edwards@uk.                                             
             ibm.com>                                                   To 
                                       "OASIS Policy"                      
             08/19/2008 10:13          <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>   
             AM                                                         cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [sca-policy] Issue 30 - Is the  
                                       policy (specified in intentMap)     
                                       from all of multiple qualified      
                                       intents in effect? - PROPOSAL       
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Folks,

I think that the resolution to Issue 39 actually means that we can close
Issue 30 with no action.

See http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-39


There is a problem here however, and that is to do with the application of
the resolution of Issue 39 to WD-06:
some important parts of the text in the first paragraph of the resolution
have not been applied to WD-06 - in
particular the parts that make it clear that "additive" and "mutually
exclusive" apply equally to intents and to
qualified intents.

I suggest that the Policy spec editors correct the application of Issue
39's resolution in WD-07.


Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

                                                                           
 From: David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>                                        
                                                                           
                                                                           
 To:   sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org                                     
                                                                           
 Date: 18/08/2008 19:31                                                    
                                                                           
                                                                           
 Subje [sca-policy] Issue 30 - Is the policy (specified in intentMap) from 
 ct:   all of multiple qualified intents in effect? - PROPOSAL             
                                                                           







Here's the issue (http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-30) text taken
from JIRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider a policySet that provides intent A with default A.X in an
intentMap. The SCDL contains:

<binding.myBinding requires="A.Y A.Z" policySets="PolicySetThatProvidesA"/>

Clearly we override A.X but with A.Y or A.Z, or is it an error? The spec
does not say. The decision comes down to

a) additive (A.Y and A.Z)
b) mutually exclusive (A.Y or A.Z)

We don't have a mechanism to express either (a) or (b).

Once we have the mechanism laid down, then the rule gets clear:

a) For additive intents, the default intent is replaced by all the
specified intents and all of the selected policies
get applied

b) For exclusive intents, it is an error for A.Y and A.Z to be specified
together.


PROPOSAL:

Issue 39 (http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-39) was resolved by adding
mutual exclusivity to an intent definition.
Here is the jist of the issue 39 resolution:

<spec fromBulletList = "true">
- @mutuallyExclusive attribute (optional) with a default of “false”.  If
this attribute is present and has a value of “true” is indicates that the
qualified intents defined for this intent are mutually exclusive.
<spec>

With the resolution of Issue-39, the resolution to Issue 30 does become
more clear as stated in the issue 30 text.

However, I believe that more text needs to be added to the spec. Therefore
I would propose to change the spec text shown above to the following (as
the resolution of Issue 30):

- @mutuallyExclusive attribute (optional) with a default of “false” which
means that the qualified intents defined for this intent are additive.  If
this attribute is present and has a value of “true” then the qualified
intents defined for this intent are mutually exclusive.



Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093  or  8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com








Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU