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

Re: Linked Data Platform Working Group Charter comment

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:59:26 +0000
Cc: martynas@graphity.org, Ora.Lassila@nokia.com, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-ldp@w3.org
Message-Id: <D412DF91-5B7E-4F43-A17A-08B4C20EF545@deri.org>
To: ryan.mcdonough@nokia.com

Ryan, All,

I guess we all agree that WebID and WebACL and the likes are necessary  
building blocks to achieve a true read/write enabled, enterprise- 
ready, industrial strength solution. However, for the sake of the  
success of this WG I also agree that we should not try to boil the  
ocean and hence: focus, focus, focus.

In this sense: -1 to incl. auth/auth topics ...

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 31 Jan 2012, at 11:56, <ryan.mcdonough@nokia.com> <ryan.mcdonough@nokia.com 
 > wrote:

> Back to the original question as to whether access control is in  
> scope or
> not, I agree with Ora that we should not punt on this issue.  
> However, I'm
> not sure that we need to attempt solve the problem this month ;)  
> Given all
> of the ideas being offered, it would appear that Access control
> mechanisms, WebACL, Web Identity might be in scope?
>
> Ryan-
>
> -- 
> Ryan J. McDonough
> Architect
> Location & Commerce
> NOKIA INC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:  ext Martynas Jusevicius <martynas@graphity.org>
> Date:  Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:35:21 +0100
> To:  Ora Lassila <ora.lassila@nokia.com>
> Cc:  <ivan@w3.org>, <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, <public-ldp@w3.org>
> Subject:  Re: Linked Data Platform Working Group Charter comment
> Resent-From:  <public-ldp@w3.org>
> Resent-Date:  Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:49:49 +0000
>
>
> Hey all,
> how about Basic Access Control ontology http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/ 
> acl ?
>
> We're using it successfully in a Linked Data context  -- in  
> combination
> with foaf:Person and sioc:UserAccount, to express a number of users  
> and
> user groups and their access rights to resources and classes of  
> resources.
> As a result, both authentication and authorization is a matter of a  
> single
> SPARQL query.
>
> It might be simplistic -- but it's a start?
>
> Martynas
> graphity.org <http://graphity.org>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:05 PM,  <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 <tel:%2B353%2091%20495730>
>>>> 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 <tel:%2B31-641044153>
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 11:59:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 31 January 2012 11:59:56 GMT