RE: [sca-policy] Latest draft of Policy Test Assertions

["Eric Wells" <eric.wells@hitachisoftware.com>]

 All,
     here is the next attempt at POL-TA-40005...

However, when I tugged a little at the loose thread the whole thing came
apart.

Inherited intents MUST be applied:

1) Even if there are no directly applied intents.

2) Except if they are mutually exclusive with directly applied intents.

3) If there are qualified and unqualified intents, only the qualified form
is applied.

4) Except if there are mutually exclusive qualified and unqualified intents.

Cases (1) and (4) were not covered in any of the previous versions of
POL-TA-40005.

We also need to take into account the case where the qualified and
unqualified forms are both inherited. (The normative statement does not
distinguish the source of the intents in this case).

I think case (4) is a corner case (and may be impossible - I couldn't figure
it out). Would it be possible to have a qualified form of an intent be
mutually exclusive with the unqualified form, or vice versa?

I am not sure if we need either a Test Assertion or a Test Case for case
(4). There are TA's (and will be TC's) That cover cases (2) and (3) so I
don't think we need a TA for the joint case (4). If we do the it will
probably result in a single TA that covers all cases (1 through 4). I think
this would be difficult to implement and would need several TC's to cover.

I think the attached document covers everything except case (4). (I also
trimmed the duplicate/alternative versions of POL-TA-40005 - change tracking
on for reference).

Best Regards,
               Eric.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Wells [mailto:eric.wells@hitachisoftware.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 12:38 AM
> To: 'oasis Policy'
> Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
> Subject: RE: [sca-policy] Latest draft of Policy Test Assertions
> 
>  All,
>      this version attempts a rewrite of TA-POL-40005 as per my AI.
> 
> There are TWO alternate versions and I have added them and 
> retained the original for comparison.
> 
> I did this as I think the first version is perhaps more 
> "accurate" but the second is consistent with the other TA's 
> and reads better.
> 
> We will need to delete whichever versions (including the 
> original) we don't use.
> 
> Best Regards,
>              Eric.
> 
> P.S. I also did some editorial work, aligning all the tables, 
> making them the same size, and corrected a few spelling 
> mistakes. I turned change tracking off while doing this to 
> retain readability. Changes were enabled for all other changes.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:43 PM
> > To: oasis Policy
> > Subject: [sca-policy] Latest draft of Policy Test Assertions
> > 
> > This contains all the changes we discussed yesterday, except for 
> > merging 40026A and 40026B about which I sent mail:
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-policy/200905/msg00002.html
> > --
> > All the best, Ashok
> > 
>

SCA_Policy_Test_Assertions_1_EW_May_18.doc