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

Re: AccessControl : update + inference

From: Andrei SAMBRA <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:19:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFG79ei9jq4bDzQNUBA5YjookiAv0aRar5NmuxEokz0em1-tMg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
Actually, I wonder if it would be a better idea to move this wiki page (on
AC) to the RWW wiki, given that it is orthogonal to LDP WG's work. I'll
create the stub wiki page and post the link in a reply.

Andrei


On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

> On 11/12/12 4:52 PM, J├╝rgen Jakobitsch wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> since the discussion on AC is apparently taking shape, it might be a
>> good time for my questions.
>>
>> 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)
>>
>> 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..
>>
>
> We we do is have SPARQL ASK as an option for determining conditions. That
> way, you handle all your desired scenarios as the data (resource)
> publisher. Basically, we offer:
>
> 1. basic WebID lists
> 2. WebIDs as members of foaf:Groups
> 3. SPARQL ASK -- for most complex conditions and custom conditions.
>
> As for inference, we have this loosely bound to the SPARQL processor which
> is why we use pragmas to enable inference context in our SPARQL
> implementation. I know of not other way to handle the contextual fluidity
> associated with this subject matter :-)
>
>>
>> wkr turnguard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about>
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 22:20:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 12 November 2012 22:20:21 GMT