From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:02 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: NEW ISSUE: Misc. (editorial) corrections throughout

Title: Misc. (editorial) corrections throughout
 
Description: I would like to suggest a few mostly editorial corrections:

1.	section 2.3 terminology
Change From:  [Definition: A policy vocabulary of a policy is the set of all policy assertion types used in a policy.]  
              To:       [Definition: A policy vocabulary is the set of all policy assertion types used in a policy.]
            The removed words are redundant and this now becomes consistent with the description in section 3.2 (Policy Alternative) that reads The vocabulary of a policy is the set of all assertion types used in all the policy alternatives in the policy.

2.	Section 3  starting text says, This abstract model is independent of how it is represented as an XML Infoset. However the description of the Policy Assertion in section 3.1 makes a generous use of XML Infoset.:

a.	The policy assertion type is identified only by the XML Infoset  (QName)
b.	Policy expression nesting is used by domain authors to further qualify one or more specific aspects of the original assertion.   (Policy Expression is defined to be XML Infoset representation of a policy).
c.	The XML Infoset of an assertion MAY contain a non-empty [attributes] property and/or a non-empty [children] property.

Suggest rephrase the main description of section 3 to state that, the XML Infoset terminology is used for convenience of description but, the abstract model itself is independent of any Infoset serialization. 

3.	Section 3.1 last sentence: 

.. domain authors are encouraged to consider when the identity of the root Element Information Item alone is enough to convey the requirement (capability).

This seems to imply capability is another name for requirement?  Suggest take capability out of parenthesis like requirement or capability

4.	Section 4.1 last paragraph below example: 

Change Lines (02-05) to (Lines (03-05)

5.	Section 3.4:

Note that a requester may be able to support a policy even if the requester does not understand the type of each assertion in the vocabulary of the policy; the requester only has to understand the type of each assertion in the vocabulary of a policy alternative.

It is not sufficient if the requester understands assertions in a policy alternative. It also needs to be able to support them.
Rephrase the latter part of the sentence (after ;) as below:

;the requester only has to understand the type of each assertion in the vocabulary of a policy alternative the requester supports.
 

Justification: Provided Interspersed in the description part.
 
Target: WS-Policy 1.5 - Framework
 
Proposal  Replacement text proposed with the description.

Regards,
Prasad Yendluri