I'm no set-notation guru... but might it not be clearer to express this as:
if(RequestScopes ∪ CandidateGrantedScopes)=={}
?
--&e
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Eve Maler
Cigdem was suggesting a way to clarify a key set math formula in Grant Sec 3.3.4 during our rev 07 review, and I was struggling to figure out a way to format it the way she was suggesting, so in rev 08 I had just left it in place without changing it. But we figured out a rhetorical vs. formatting change that might clarify things a bit more: to change from this...
*“{∪ resource {RequestedScopes\CandidateGrantedScopes}={}”*
to this:
*"{∪_of_resource {RequestedScopes\CandidateGrantedScopes}={}"*
The intent is to say that you take the *union* over all the resource-mapped sets of the diff between *RequestedScopes* and *CandidateGrantedScopes*, and if *that's* empty, then you've got a slam-dunk case of issuing the RPT. The snippet *"∪ resource"* may be sufficient to convey that, but we thought *"∪_of_resource"* could be better. (Or maybe someone has some other improvement that's even better.)
If we have quorum in our call today, we could do a new motion just like the e-ballot to rev to 09 with that update, assuming we think it's necessary.
*Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 <(425)%20345-6756> | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
-- Andrew Hindle Hindle Consulting Limited +44 7966 136543 Schedule a meeting https://freebusy.io/andrew@hindleconsulting.com/30min -- ------------------------------ Hindle Consulting Limited is a company registered in England and Wales. Company number: 8888564. Registered office: Claremont House, Deans Court, Bicester, Oxfordshire OX26 6BW, UK.