Re: Triple Access Control

Am 15.09.2011 12:56, schrieb Bob Ferris:
> Hi bergi,
> 
> after I've reviewed your proposal a bit deeper, here are my remarks:
> 
> 1. Vocabulary/Ontology specification documentation:
> - it might be good to introduce a PURL (e.g. purl.org) for your
> vocabulary, which also do content negotiation (let me know if you'll
> need help on this)

It's my server, so I can configure that.

> - you should include references for accessing alternative serialisations
> of your vocabulary, e.g., in Turtle, RDF/XML, ...

It's already there [1]. I had to prepare that for specgen.

> - you should include references to downloadable files of your outlined
> example (e.g. in different serialisations)

I've already created a template for specgen6. It's not finished now, but
this version will include links to the examples.

> - it might be good to include a further example that makes use of the
> tac:graph property

Good idea, but that will take some time. I'm very busy at the moment.

> 
> 2. The TAC Vocabulary:
> - I really like the filter approach with setting a subject, predicate
> and object as needed
> - I would remove the dependency to the RDF Reification Vocabulary from
> tac:subject, tac:predicate and tac:object properties, since the sub
> property relation do not really add any value to your intended modelling

Also I wasn't sure if I should add it or not. I just wanted some
documentation for the properties. But it may be the best to have this
documentation in the TAC ontology.

> - the tac:graph property is really fine, however, what about single
> statements - I know this is still a problem in general and especially
> the RDF WG Graph Task Force [1] tries to enlight this topic a bit.
> However, in general RDF Graphs that consist of one statement are mess,
> if they exist where they do not really have to existing. That's why, I
> would vote one more time for statement identifier (see [2]). They could
> also be utilized to cover the circles use case as well, i.e., the
> circles content will be represented with a RDF Graph enclosure and due
> to the fact that each statement can be identified via a statement
> identifier, it can be utilised in multiple graphs. What do you think
> about this? (Albeit, one could utilise RDF Graphs here as well to
> enclose a full resource-description (e.g. a post)).

I didn't had time to read all that stuff. But a single property like
tac:statement, would be fine, or?

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Bo
> 
> 
> PS: It might be interesting to see an example that utilises the TAC
> Vocabulary and a combined role-group-modelling

It's on the todo list...

> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2011Jan/0001.html
> [3]
> http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/snapshot/gremlin-plugin.html#rest-api-hyperedges---find-user-roles-in-groups
> 

[1] http://ns.bergnet.org/tac/0.1/

Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 23:22:46 UTC