1.After line 241 in section 3.1 of version CD2, PubRev 01, 7-Apr-09, insert the following 2 paragraphs:
All intents are inherently “qualifiable”, but can only become qualified intents if one or more qualifiers are defined to be related to that intent. All intents may be considered to have an implicit qualifier defined, named “any”, which means any qualifier defined for the intent (including "any") may be used to satisfy the intent. An unqualified intent is implicitly qualified by the qualifier "any" and therefore implicitly becomes a qualified intent.2. Change the definition of default to be:
In general there may be many “known ways” to satisfy an intent. The implicit qualifier, “any” can be taken to mean that “any of those known ways” may be used to satisfy the intent. A defined qualifier other than "any" may be taken to mean a specific subset of those “known ways” to satisfy an intent.
@default (0..1) - a boolean value with a default value of "false". If @default="true" the particular qualifier is the default qualifier for the intent. If an intent has more than one qualifier defined, then either the implicit qualifier "any" or one and only one of the defined qualifiers must be defined as the default qualifier.The intended net effect of these changes is allow "any" to be assumed to be an implicit qualifier that applies whenever the intent appears in its unqualified form. It also says that "any" represents an implicit set of all "known ways" to satisfy the intent. And finally, and most important to resolving the issue, it says that "any" may be explicitly defined as the default qualifier.
The only thing I am uncertain about is how to introduce "any" to the schema. The idea is that "any" is always implicitly specified for the unqualified version of any intent, but only needs to be ever explicitly specified if it is intended to be the qualifier for which the default property is intended to be set to "true" for a particular intent.
This also enables the definition to be made independently of qualifying whether defaults apply only to intentMaps or otherwise, which may or may not be a desired clarification to make in the spec.
If this overall approach is agreed to then we can decide how to apply it to the schema and whether or not to say more about the default vis a vis intentMaps.
Thanks,
Rich
David Booz wrote:
OF4B453B7E.CC112F58-ON852575EE.0047EBC0-852575EE.0048CF68@us.ibm.com" type="cite">Rich,
I think the resolution of ISSUE-95 addresses your concern. With this resolution, the only thing a default qualifier does is choose a path through an intent map when the policySet provides the unqualified form of the intent.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-95
Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
David Booz---07/09/2009 08:49:28 AM---http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-97 Dave Booz
From:
David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
To:
sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:
07/09/2009 08:49 AM
Subject:
[sca-policy] ISSUE-97: Suggestion to address suspected default/unqualified intent ambiguity
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-97
Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
"Rich.Levinson" ---07/08/2009 05:41:41 PM---Note: this can either be a new issue or it can be considered part of either or both of issues 90 an
From:
"Rich.Levinson" <rich.levinson@oracle.com>
To:
OASIS Policy <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
07/08/2009 05:41 PM
Subject:
[sca-policy] [NEW ISSUE] Suggestion to address suspected default/unqualified intent ambiguity
Note: this can either be a new issue or it can be considered part of either or both of issues 90 and 95. Discussion so far of issues 90 and 95 has pretty much convinced me that something is insufficiently specified about unqualified vs qualified intents in conjunction with specifications for defaults.
TARGET:
SCA Policy FW cd02 rev1 (doc)
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=31980&wg_abbrev=sca-policy
SUMMARY:
Specifically, it appears to be unclear whether specifying an unqualified version of an intent that has qualifiers defined for it means that one should use the unqualified intent to mean that ANY of the qualifiers is acceptable, or whether it means that the default qualifier should be applied to the unqualified version.
DETAILS:
The definition of default says (305-308):First, let me point out what appears to me to be a minor ambiguity in this defn: The highlighted text applies when there is MORE THAN ONE qualifier defined, and it says that ONE MUST be declared as the default. The "minor" ambiguity is that if there is ONLY ONE qualifier DEFINED, then is this by defn the default? or not? i.e. can an intent have only a single qualifier defined and at the same time have its "default" attribute have its default value of false? In my proposal below, this issue goes away, but I thought it worth mentioning.
@default (0..1) - a boolean value with a default value of "false". If @default="true" the particular qualifier is the default qualifier for the intent. If an intent has more than one qualifier, one and only one MUST be declared as the default qualifier.
What I consider to be the "major" ambiguity is what is described in the SUMMARY above, namely that if we go by the definition of "default" and have more than one qualifier defined, then one of those qualifiers must be defined as the default value. Therefore, one MUST assume (I would think) that if an unqualified intent was specified then when this intent was processed, that one MUST apply the default qualifier to it. Why? Because, otherwise the definition of "default" is rendered meaningless, because the default only is used when the intent is unqualified, and if we apply the default then the intent is now qualified. However, on the other hand, if we were say that the intent should remain unqualified, then this means there is no point to defining a default, since there are no circumstances when it would be used!
Based on the discussion of issue 95, and based on my original understanding of what was intended, and based on the proposed resolution to issue 95, which I believe is to allow the following lines about SOAP to remain accurate (2306-2310, esp. last sentence):i.e. based on all the above I am suggesting the following proposal:
SOAP – The SOAP intent specifies that the SOAP messaging model is used for delivering messages. It does not require the use of any specific transport technology for delivering the messages, so for example, this intent can be supported by a binding that sends SOAP messages over HTTP, bare TCP or even JMS. If the intent is attached in an unqualified form then any version of SOAP is acceptable.
PROPOSAL:
In words, the proposal is:As indicated in the "minor" problem above, that problem goes away because we no longer require any qualifier to have the default attribute true and so there is no need to force the unqualified intent to assume a default qualifier.
1. Allow unqualified intents that have qualifiers defined, to indicate that ANY of the qualifiers is an acceptable means of satisfying the intent.
2. Change the meaning of "default" as follows:
1. Leave specification of the default to be optional (0:1) for each qualifier.
2. Do NOT require any qualifier to be the default. i.e. REMOVE the sentence that says "...one MUST be declared as the default qualifier"
3. But do say: "If one qualifier IS DEFINED with default="true", then if the intent is specified as unqualified, then the default value applies."
4. However, also say: "If one or more qualifiers is defined for the intent, and NONE of the qualifiers has a default="true" attribute THEN if the intent is specified as unqualified, then ANY one of the qualifiers may be used to satisfy the intent.
