Title: Schema 15f
To
clarify my concern.
Using stated promotion rules to determine the return type
of a "numerical" operation breaks the isea of strong typing of the return type
of the function.
Not
good for policy verification..
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Moses
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:04
PM
To: 'XACML'
Subject: RE: [xacml] Schema
15f
Daniel - My understanding is that your issue is addressed by the "type
promotion" rules that Michiharu has identified.
In
case anyone thinks I have inadvertently revealed a deceit by referring to the
contents of Michiharu's document, which I previously said I was unable to
decode, I was actually able to decode the plain-text part of the document,
which discussed type-promotion, but not the table, which (I assume) contained
the legal type-combinations for the functions.
All
the best. Tim.
-----------------------------------------
Tim Moses
Tel:
613.270.3183
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Engovatov
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002
4:40 PM
To: 'Tim Moses'; 'XACML'
Subject: RE: [xacml]
Schema 15f
I
apologize for repeating myself, but how do you plan to map "numeric"?
Float's and exact integers do have very different meaning for many, many
purposes
(you do not open an account N. 3.0000000001 != 3 - IEEE floats do not
guarantee last digit IIRC) My suggestion was - allow an implicit
conversion of integer to float, but
not the other way around (using FLOOR, and ROUND
instead...)
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Moses
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002
1:33 PM
To: 'XACML'
Subject: [xacml] Schema
15f
Colleagues - Attached, please find version 15f of the
policy schema, incorporating the decisions we made on Monday last, and the
table of function names and legal argument types. Some notes
...
1. The documents are not "free-standing". Further
explanation is required if one is to fully understand them. Of
course, the intention is to provide that explanation in the specification,
which is not available yet. In the meantime, some "real-time"
discussion is necessary. We can do this on Monday.
Alternatively, we could hold an ad-hoc schema sub-committee meeting on
(say) Friday, provided people are ready to discuss by then.
2. There has recently been some discussion of the schema
on the list. I have attempted to address some of the issues
raised. But, I suggest that we hammer out an agenda ahead of our
next meeting in order to go over all the issues raised. I'll review
the mail-list and produce an initial schema-issues list.
3. I was unable to decode Michiharu's operator-mapping
list. The attached is my own attempt. Perhaps, Michiharu will
verify my version. I have retained the "duration" functions, because
I personally feel that they have some value, provided we carefully define
them.
All the best. Tim.
-----------------------------------------
Tim Moses
Tel: 613.270.3183
