4598 2007-06-05 20:27:27 +0000 Some compact expressions appear not to have normal forms 2007-06-13 16:29:09 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS-Policy Framework CR All All RESOLVED FIXED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0297.html P2 normal --- 1 dmh fsasaki public-ws-policy-qa oldest_to_newest 15286 0 dmh 2007-06-05 20:27:27 +0000 Running through the basic case analysis, ignoring the outer <wsp:Policy>, taking everything modulo commutativity and letting <Ai/> represent assertions in normal form: (1) <ExactlyOne> <All>...</All>* </ExactlyOne> can be normalized if the <All> expressions can be normalized (or already contain only assertions). See below. (2) <ExactlyOne> <ExactlyOne>....</ExactlyOne>+ </ExactlyOne> can be reduced by the associative rule. (3) <ExactlyOne> <ExactlyOne>...</ExactlyOne>* (<All>...</All>|<Ai/>)+ <ExactlyOne> Does not appear to be in normal form, and there does not appear to be a rule by which to reduce it. Any ExactlyOne children may be reduced by associativity, but this does not appear to help. (4) <All> <ExactlyOne>...</ExactlyOne>* </All> can be reduced by the distributive rule (or by the "empty" rule if there are no children). (5) <All> <All>...</All>+ <Ai/>* </All> can be reduced by the associative rule. (6) <All> <Ai/>* </All> is fine if it's a subexpression and can be wrapped in ExactlyOne if not. (7) <All> <ExactlyOne>...<ExactlyOne>+ (<Ai/>|<All>...</All>)+ </All> Does not appear to be in normal form, and there does not appear to be a rule by which to reduce it. Any All children may be reduced by associativity, but this does not appear to help. ---- I see three possible resolutions: 1) I got the math wrong, and the forms that do not appear to have normal forms actually do. I'm pretty sure I got it right, and I've asked the list what rules might apply, but on the other hand it seems unlikely that no one has previously done this basic analysis. If I missed something and there is a way to normalize the expressions above, then we can close the issue. 2) Disallow expressions in forms (3) and (7), with a statement to the effect of "The following compact forms have no normal form. A processor MUST fault on encountering them." 3a) Add a rule (say, "Promotion") to wrap bare assertion children in otherwise non-normal expressions in the operator opposite their parent. E.g., (note, these examples are of course non-normative; the text would be normative) <ExactlyOne> <A1/> </ExactlyOne> ==> (promotion) <ExactlyOne> <All> <A1/> </All> </ExactlyOne> ---- <ExactlyOne> <All><A1/><A2/></All> <A3/> </ExactlyOne> ==> (promotion) <ExactlyOne> <All><A1/><A2/></All> <All><A3/></All> </ExactlyOne> ---- <ExactlyOne> <All><A1/><A2/></All> <A3/> <ExactlyOne><A4/><A5/></ExactlyOne> </ExactlyOne> ==> (associative) <ExactlyOne> <All><A1/><A2/></All> <A3/> <A4/> <A5/> </ExactlyOne> ==> (promotion) <ExactlyOne> <All><A1/><A2/></All> <All><A3/></All> <All><A4/></All> <All><A5/></All> </ExactlyOne> 3b) If that's not the right behavior, add some other rule or rules. 15419 1 asirveda 2007-06-13 16:29:09 +0000 <toufic> unanimous consent to resolve issue 4598 <prasad> rrsagent, where am I? <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2007/06/13-ws-policy-irc#T16-27-25 <PaulC> RESOLUTION: The WG adopted the two part change in 2007Jun/0030.html to resolve issue 4598.