W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Linked Data Platform Working Group Charter comment

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:07:43 +0100
Cc: <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>, <public-ldp@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DB2278B9-53AB-406F-BE52-92D175181F08@w3.org>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
If it comes up with such survey, that would be fine. But that CG has already made a choice for a specific set of technologies; in this sense it is not exactly it...

Ivan

On Jan 17, 2012, at 16:27 , Michael Hausenblas wrote:

> 
>> One approach would be (something that is possible today thought was not before) is to create a community group for that purpose, with the explicit charter of consolidating/surveying what is out there in this area already, and see if there is a possibility/chance to come up with some more systematic standardization work. We would need champions to drive that, though...
> 
> 
> You mean like http://www.w3.org/community/rww/ maybe? :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 	Michael
> --
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel. +353 91 495730
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> http://sw-app.org/about.html
> 
> On 17 Jan 2012, at 15:17, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> One approach would be (something that is possible today thought was not before) is to create a community group for that purpose, with the explicit charter of consolidating/surveying what is out there in this area already, and see if there is a possibility/chance to come up with some more systematic standardization work. We would need champions to drive that, though...
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> On Jan 17, 2012, at 16:05 , <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ivan,
>>> 
>>> Indeed. [Sigh] If I knew of an access control mechanism that is mature and
>>> proven in the Linked Data context I would have made a much stronger
>>> statement in favor of addressing the issue. We do not want to engage in
>>> R&D work (we have made that mistake before ;-) but my great fear is that
>>> if we merely suggest that someone else will take care of this we may be
>>> signaling that this is not an issue of paramount importance.
>>> 
>>> I don't have any magical answers or advice here, I am merely expressing
>>> concern... I guess I would like there at least to be some discussion about
>>> this. Saying that there is no solution and saying that something is out of
>>> scope should, after all, not be the same thing.
>>> 
>>> 	- Ora
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2012-01-17 9:54 AM, "ext Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ora,
>>>> 
>>>> I hear you. However (and that may show my complete ignorance...) is there
>>>> any access control mechanism out there that has already proven itself in
>>>> the area of Linked Data deployment that is in the maturity level of
>>>> standardization? I am a bit concerned about chartering this group with an
>>>> essentially R&D work while the other goals are much less so...
>>>> 
>>>> Ivan
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 17, 2012, at 15:47 , <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> As much as I would like to have a "tight scope" for this WG, I have to
>>>>> observe that access control (or more like lack thereof) has often been a
>>>>> problem in Semantic Web/Linked Data projects I have been involved in.
>>>>> Particularly fine-grained access control of Semantic Web data.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I fear that deeming access control strictly "out of scope" and hoping
>>>>> that
>>>>> some (so far unspecified) liaison with other groups to solve this
>>>>> problem
>>>>> will only result in the issue not being seen as important enough.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My $0.02.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	- Ora
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Dr. Ora Lassila  ora.lassila@nokia.com  http://www.lassila.org
>>>>> Principal Technologist, Nokia
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2012-01-17 6:25 AM, "ext Michael Hausenblas"
>>>>> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'd suggest to improve the following section and be more explicit
>>>>>> regarding the bigger picture [1]:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [[
>>>>>> 2.3 Out of Scope
>>>>>> Several possible standards that are out of scope for this group, such
>>>>>> as those listed below:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	 Access control mechanisms, WebACL, Web Identity
>>>>>> ]]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mention that both authentication and authorisation are orthogonal
>>>>>> issues and hence, in order to stay focused and to be successful, the
>>>>>> WG will not focus on these issues (but liaison with the respective
>>>>>> groups to ensure compatibility and openness).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> 	Michael
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WriteWebOfData
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
>>>>>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
>>>>>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>>>>>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
>>>>>> Ireland, Europe
>>>>>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>>>>>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>>>>>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 16:06:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 January 2012 16:06:53 GMT