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

Re: Linked Data Platform Working Group Charter comment

From: <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:40:51 +0000
To: <david@3roundstones.com>, <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
CC: <ryan.mcdonough@nokia.com>, <martynas@graphity.org>, <ivan@w3.org>, <public-ldp@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CB4D6796.9DFD%ora.lassila@nokia.com>
Good suggestion


On 2012-01-31 9:33 AM, "ext David Wood" <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>On Jan 31, 2012, at 08:24, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>>> 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
>
>Agreed.  I would think that blessing existing auth/auth solutions or
>standards would be in scope, but creating new ones would be out of scope.
> If the group finds that no existing solution meets its needs, then I
>suggest that the charter task the group with identifying the lacks.
>
>Regards,
>Dave
>
>
>> 
>> 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 14:41:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 31 January 2012 14:41:28 GMT