having personally struggled with the general usage of the term 'target'
in the past, i too am comfortable with the concept of 'Target Values'
and 'Target Mapping' as defined by hal's previous note.
i also agree with tim's assertion that policies should map to fully
qualified namespaces. i think that this will be necessary to maintain
any hopes of interoperability.
b
Tim Moses wrote:
> Hal - I had promoted the term "applicability", not because I felt it was
> preferable to your proposed term: "target", but because we needed a term
> for this concept, and I did not understand that "target" was intended to
> serve exactly this purpose. Personally, I would be happy to switch to
> "target".
>
>
>
> I agree with the points you make in this message.
>
>
>
> I was, however, thinking that (to pick up your very final point) XML
> documents, to which these policies control access, would have fully
> qualified namespaces to identify their type. Then the policy (even if
> it is attached) would "target" that namespace. This approach, of
> course, means that the policy applies uniformly to all instances of the
> type. We should probably debate the use of the reserved word "this".
>
>
>
> All the best. Tim.