OASIS eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) TC

RE: [xacml] Revised specification - added matching functions

  • 1.  RE: [xacml] Revised specification - added matching functions

    Posted 08-21-2002 14:35
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    xacml message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Subject: RE: [xacml] Revised specification - added matching functions


    
    There is no reason to restrict round to a non-empty sequence.
    That is why I believe we should have two functions, round and map_round.
    
    You will not be able to apply your "round" to a non-sequenced
    "<xs:decimal>".
    
    On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Daniel Engovatov wrote:
    
    >
    > I am revising the spreadsheet anyway - some functions were missing - I will
    > send it out soon.
    >
    > But I do not think there is a problem with this - we naturally have all
    > arguments as sequences anyway - due to the nature of attribute selection in
    > context.  There is nothing confusing about what this functions return as
    > they will provide the exact same result on single<type> as on
    > ne_sequence<type>.  Whatever function consumes their result will deal with
    > the
    > sequence being of incorrect length.
    >
    > Use case would be:  if context has multiple values of a decimal argument
    > foo, and you want to check whether at least one of the values, rounded, is
    > equal to an integer 3.
    >
    > you will use (member_of ((attribute value type=int)3) (round (attribute
    > selector name=foo)))
    >
    >
    > On the other hand I would not advice specifying map_X functions with
    > sequence<type>, instead of ne_sequence<>.
    
    Why not.
    
    > What are their result for an empty sequence?  They should produce an error,
    > as specified for an empty sequence.
    
    If applied to a function that requires a non-empty sequence, yes. But some
    do not have to be applied to non-empty sequences.
    
    > So you addition does seem to clarify anything, but introduces a
    > unspecified behaviour for an empty sequence..
    
    There is no unspecified behavior for an empty sequence. Empty sequences
    can be your "set" with nothing in them.
    
    > Daniel.
    >
    >
    >