Re: major revision of LDP draft charter

Section 2. Scope.

"The Working Group will not normatively specify solutions for access
control and authentication for Linked Data. However the Working Group
will identify, based on a set of real world use cases, requirements for
necessary authentication and authorization technologies."

I understand how a strict construction of "linked data" would rule this
out of scope, but realistically no one will be able to champion LDP in
an enterprise with only a set of "requirements" for the security aspect.
In the enterprise, security and access control must be built in from the
ground up, not added as an afterthought.

Industry doesn't need yet another set of requirements for access
control. There are already several good models: XACML seems the most
nearly suited for LDP, but there are also RIF and RuleML (and
LegalRuleML recently started as an OASIS TC). The XACML TC has started
work on a RESTful profile for XACML.

Please consider upgrading this scope statement from "will
identify...requirements" to something like "will specify an abstract
interface and notional architecture by which LDP systems can
interoperate with RESTful authentication and authorization systems".

Regards,
--Paul

On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 12:13 -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> After various discussions, we've rewritten the Linked Data Platform
> (LDP) draft charter.  New version is here:
> 
>         http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter
>         
> The diff is linked from there, but only the last few paragraphs
> (standard charter stuff) are the similar enough for the diff to be
> useful.
> 
> At this point, we're expecting to formally propose this to the W3C
> membership within a week or two, so please review it soon.
> 
>    -- Sandro
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 21:29:24 UTC