sca-policy message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-policy] ISSUE-97: Suggestion to address suspected default/unqualifiedintent ambiguity
- From: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
- To: "OASIS Policy" <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:25:52 +0100
Folks,
I don't like the introduction of this
notional "any" qualifier.
It is at best confusing. I certainly
think that it is NOT a good idea to have a formal definition of it in the
schema.
The unqualified intent does mean that
any of the defined qualifiers is a valid interpretation of the unqualified
form
of the intent, but there is not really
an "any" actual qualifier outside the set of explicitly defined
qualifiers. So in that sense
"any" does not exist as a
qualifier. What actually exists is the set of defined qualifiers
- and the unqualified form
of the intent actually represents this
set. Specifying a qualified form of the intent means taking the subset
of the set
- with the subset being the one qualified
form.
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:
| "Rich.Levinson" <rich.levinson@oracle.com>
|
To:
| David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>,
sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
|
Date:
| 20/07/2009 06:27
|
Subject:
| Re: [sca-policy] ISSUE-97: Suggestion
to address suspected default/unqualified intent ambiguity |
Based on discussion from last week's meeting, I took an
action item to suggest text changes to represent what was agreed to be
the meaning of qualified/unqualified and default. I am suggesting that
the following two text changes should capture that meaning (Note: the proposed
change is fairly subtle in that it defines something that does not ever
have to be explicitly used, but the fact that it is defined and can be
used appears to remove the asserted ambiguities):
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.
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.
2. Change the definition of default to be:
@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:
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
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):
@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.
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.
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):
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.
i.e. based on all the above I am suggesting the following
proposal:
PROPOSAL:
In words, the proposal is:
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.
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.
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
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]