W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [foaf-protocols] owl:Restrictions in ACL - was Re: ACL Ontology and Discussion

From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:49:08 +0100
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, foaf-protocols <foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org>
Message-Id: <FE3D7F40-1C34-41D5-8244-1719CDBBC8B2@bblfish.net>
To: Joe Presbrey <presbrey@gmail.com>

On 21 Apr 2010, at 16:58, Joe Presbrey wrote:

>> Sadly, I'm going to have to implement the above in the short term though
>> as can't for the life of me see any other way of expressing:
>> if graph <Gx> holds the triple <group> <has_member> <webid> .
>>  where <Gx> is found by dereferencing <group>
>>  where <group> and <has_member> are defined in the ACL
>>  where <webid> is only known at runtime after checking foaf+ssl.
> I'm not sure about the Gx dereference at this point.  I guess this is
> analogous to multiple groups being defined in the same graph and
> distinguished by fragment.  Are you planning to do this like:
> defrag(group)?  Along these lines I think Apache people like
> AuthGroupFile in .htaccess which explicitly declares what "graphs" are
> trusted for authorization.  Maybe you aren't counting this as another
> way of expressing, but in SPARQL I would say:
> ASK {
>  GRAPH <acl> {
>    ?acl acl:accessTo <uri>; acl:mode acl:Read; acl:accessClass <group> .
>  }
>  GRAPH <group> {
>    <group> <has_member> <webid> .
>  }
> }

yes, a SPARQL query such as the above, if the engine knows to go and dereference the Graph ids, 
is close to the N3 rules I was thinking of.

The OWL inferencing is then done inside the graphs such as <group>.

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 16:50:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:05 UTC