Hi,
i share this feeling (incidentally, i brough it up in the last concall,
and also in previous once).
i was interpreting them more as "actions" than "conditions".
best
-p
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, bill parducci wrote:
> i know that it is late to bring this up, but i find the term 'post
> condition' unintuitive. typically, this phrase means the *state* of
> something after an action, not something to be acted upon. it seems that
> the way we are using the term implies quite a bit about the context of
> what is being done. (post what? where?) i think this is being
> demonstrated by the discussions surronding the scope of said phrase.
>
> in my mind, it would seem that something like 'adjunct policy' or
> 'adjunct policy condition' would be more appropriate? just typing out
> loud...
>
> b
>
>
> > [PM-1-02] - The alternative view is that post-conditions must be
>
> executed if and only if the associated rule contributes to the permit
>
> decision.
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
