RE: [xacml] Schema 15f

Title: RE: [xacml] Schema 15f

Daniel/Michiharu - So, we have two proposals ...

1. Separate functions for integer and float argument types

2. Explicit functions for round and floor (with one float argument and a return data type of integer).

Any other suggestions?

Personally, I prefer proposal 2.  It seems to make it absolutely clear what is supposed to happen when converting a float result to an integer.

<Function Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:XACML:0.15c:operators:round" DataType=xs:integer">

<Function Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:XACML:0.15c:operators:add" DataType=xs:float">

<Attribute DataType="xs:float">1.2E3</Attribute>

<Attribute DataType="xs:integer">1</Attribute></Function>

</Function>

</Function>

All the best.  Tim.

-----------------------------------------

Tim Moses

Tel: 613.270.3183

-----Original Message-----

From: Michiharu Kudoh [mailto:]

Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:17 AM

To: Daniel Engovatov

Cc: 'XACML'

Subject: RE: [xacml] Schema 15f

Daniel,

I think that a solution for your concern would be to supply a couple of

functions for different numerical data types such as integer_equal,

decimal_equal and float_equal in addition to the numerical_equal. For

example, the integer_equal receives two integers as input arguments and

returns an integer. In this case, you can raise a type exception if the

input argument is float while the integer_equal is used. Is that what you

want to support?

Michiharu

IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory, Internet Technology

Tel. +81 (46) 215-4642   Fax +81 (46) 273-7428

                                                                                                                                     

                      Daniel Engovatov                                                                                               

                      <dengovatov@cross        To:       "'Tim Moses'" <>, "'XACML'"                            

                      logix.com>                <>                                                         

                                               cc:                                                                                   

                      2002/07/11 06:10         Subject:  RE: [xacml] Schema 15f                                                      

                      Please respond to                                                                                              

                      Daniel Engovatov                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                     

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

----------------------------------------------------------------

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription

manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>