W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > November 2012

Re: AccessControl : update + inference

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:01:10 +0100
Cc: "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
Message-Id: <03174502-3AAC-48D4-A4F2-4ACE44DBF662@bblfish.net>
To: j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at

On 12 Nov 2012, at 22:52, Jürgen Jakobitsch <j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at> wrote:

> hi,
> 
> since the discussion on AC is apparently taking shape, it might be a
> good time for my questions.

yes, note also the LDP working groups new wiki page:
  http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl

Their aim is not it seems to choose a solution. See the introduction of that page.

> 
> until now we more or less only had examples of AC in action on the
> data-retrieval side (as far as i know at least).
> 
> do acl-engines only really work with inference-engines when updating or
> are there recommended ways of dealing with the following example?
> 
> prereq.: acl - denies access to resource "x" (say a skos:Concept)

In my view it is better if acls are on resources/documents. Doing access  control
on concepts does not really make sense I think, and is a lot more complicated. 
Concepts are not things people can own: documents, or resources published by servers
( which are agents of some sort ) can be guarded on the other hand.

> 
> what should happen, when i add the triple?
> 
> resource "y" skos:broader resource "x"?
> 
> 
> there are several scenarios in which this could take place :
> 
> 1. should the update request be rejected with full inferencing, because
> it becomes clear the resource "x" is touched?
> 2. what happens in a non-inferencing environment? with that is created a
> relation between the two resources and i could construct (sparql-wise)
> whatever i want, which brings me to the idea of never trusting
> application/sparql-results+*...
> 
> 
> so the crucial point seems to be that ACLs can handle updates more
> flexible, a read and write access denied for a single resource might not
> be enough.
> 
> any pointer to the most flexible acl-ontology? 
> i'm thinking about something like :
> 
> denyWriteAccess where resource "x" is the object.
> 
> any pointer really appreciated..
> 
> wkr turnguard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> | Jürgen Jakobitsch, 
> | Software Developer
> | Semantic Web Company GmbH
> | Mariahilfer Straße 70 / Neubaugasse 1, Top 8
> | A - 1070 Wien, Austria
> | Mob +43 676 62 12 710 | Fax +43.1.402 12 35 - 22
> 
> COMPANY INFORMATION
> | web       : http://www.semantic-web.at/
> | foaf      : http://company.semantic-web.at/person/juergen_jakobitsch
> PERSONAL INFORMATION
> | web       : http://www.turnguard.com
> | foaf      : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
> | g+        : https://plus.google.com/111233759991616358206/posts
> | skype     : jakobitsch-punkt
> | xmlns:tg  = "http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard#"

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/



Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 22:01:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 12 November 2012 22:01:44 GMT