xacml — archive

[Polar Humenn]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, bill parducci wrote: > >>...which in the context of granting access is the functional equivalent > >>of setting N/A = TRUE. > >> > >>t + n/a = t > >> > > > > Not so, the semantics is that the policy does not apply. > > We are working with a 3 valued logic (4 if we include evaulation error). > > > > f or n/a = f, (i.e. n/a is not "set" to "true"). > > > > > help me understand this, evaluating the following using this logic > > > t AND n/a > > is reduced to > > t > > which evaluates to TRUE. therefore, > > t AND n/a = t > > bottom line: if 'n/a' means 'do not consider when resolving' it > evalutates to TRUE when used in an AND clause in terms of *functional* > equivalency. can you give me an exmaple otherwise? In the proposed logic, t AND t = t t AND n/a = t However, that does NOT mean that for t AND x = t x must be t (in this logic). For an analogous example in classical logic, Take implication => t => t = t t => f = f f => t = t f => f = t x => t = t does not force x to be t f => x = t does not force x to be t. n/a is n/a. It is a separate entity. cheers, -Polar > > b > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >