- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:24:23 +0000
- To: Ryan McDonough <ryan.mcdonough@nokia.com>
- Cc: martynas@graphity.org, Ora.Lassila@nokia.com, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-ldp@w3.org
> But rather than punt on > the issue completely, I would like propose we define the minimal set > of > requirements for auth/auth. From there, we can look at some of the > suggestions that have been raised on this list so far to see if they > are > capable of satisfying these requirements. +1 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 13:21, <ryan.mcdonough@nokia.com> <ryan.mcdonough@nokia.com > wrote: > I don't think we wanted to boil the ocean here. The point was that if > you're enabling read/write linked data on the web, or private network, > identity and security are obvious requirements in my view. As Ora > pointed > out, these issues come up time and time again on the projects we've > been > working internally. > > At the very least, the LDP should offer some recommendations on how > to do > it. And I agree with you, let's not solve everyone's problems and > I'm not > suggesting the WG rolls our own solutions either. But rather than > punt on > the issue completely, I would like propose we define the minimal set > of > requirements for auth/auth. From there, we can look at some of the > suggestions that have been raised on this list so far to see if they > are > capable of satisfying these requirements. > > Ryan- > > > -- > Ryan J. McDonough > Architect > Location & Commerce > NOKIA INC. > > > > > > > On 1/31/12 6:59 AM, "ext Michael Hausenblas" <michael.hausenblas@deri.org > > > wrote: > >> >> 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 13:25:05 UTC