[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [xacml] [batch #2] counter proposal to 3-04
Just for the illustration purpose, I scanned briefly the current version of OCL -- v1.4 (http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/01-09-77) and tried to create an OCL equivalent of the psudo code accompanying the proposed resolution for PM-1-01-A (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200203/msg00093.html). This is what I got: GLOBAL DENY RULE COMBINER in an ad hoc Java-like language: ------------------------------------------ for <rule> in <ruleSet> { boolean atLeastOnePermit = false; effect = eval(<rule>); if (effect == "deny" || effect == "indeterminate") { return "deny"; } else if (effect == "permit") { atLeastOnePermit = true; } } if (atLeastOnePermit) { return "permit"; } else { return "not applicable"; } ----------------------------------- GLOBAL DENY RULE COMBINER in OCL ----------------------------- package XACML context GlobalDenyRuleCombiner::combine(rules : RuleSet) : Effect post: if ruleSet.rule->exists(effect = Effect::deny or effect = Effect::indeterminate) then result = Effect::deny else if ruleSet.rule->exists(effect = Effect::permit) then result = Effect::permit else result = Effect::notapplicable endif endif endpackage ------------------------------ I'm sure there are some errors in my example. But this is just to give everybody else some idea about OCL. However, an OCL checker (http://www.klasse.nl/ocl/ocl-checker-text.html) that checks syntax exists and can be used for XACML work, I believe. Plus software vendors provide some support as well. Unless there are any strong objections I propose to resolve issue PM-3-04 (Pseudo Code for Combiner Algorithms) with the following text: Proposed Resolution: Object Constraint Language (OCL) v1.4, as specified in [OMG formal/01-09-77], should be used to describe any mandatory-to-implement combiner algorithms. Regards Konstantin -----Original Message----- From: bill parducci [mailto:bill@parducci.net] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:35 AM To: xacml Subject: RE: [xacml] [batch #2] counter proposal to 3-04 OCL is a great idea. good call. b On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 06:59, Beznosov, Konstantin wrote: > I tend to agree with Bill's point that the language should not be > vendor-specific. This is especially important if we want this standard > be ever supported across the industry. > > However, I'm not sure how much we can leverage a specific programming > language without getting trapped into the problem of providing > compilable code. Isn't it better to use some formal, such as Z or OCL, > language for such things? See > http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rej99/suprema/examples_main.htm for an example. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC