- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:59:26 +0000
- To: ryan.mcdonough@nokia.com
- Cc: martynas@graphity.org, Ora.Lassila@nokia.com, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-ldp@w3.org
Ryan, All, I guess we all agree that WebID and WebACL and the likes are necessary building blocks to achieve a true read/write enabled, enterprise- ready, industrial strength solution. However, for the sake of the success of this WG I also agree that we should not try to boil the ocean and hence: focus, focus, focus. In this sense: -1 to incl. auth/auth topics ... Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 31 Jan 2012, at 11:56, <ryan.mcdonough@nokia.com> <ryan.mcdonough@nokia.com > wrote: > Back to the original question as to whether access control is in > scope or > not, I agree with Ora that we should not punt on this issue. > However, I'm > not sure that we need to attempt solve the problem this month ;) > Given all > of the ideas being offered, it would appear that Access control > mechanisms, WebACL, Web Identity might be in scope? > > Ryan- > > -- > Ryan J. McDonough > Architect > Location & Commerce > NOKIA INC. > > > > > > > From: ext Martynas Jusevicius <martynas@graphity.org> > Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:35:21 +0100 > To: Ora Lassila <ora.lassila@nokia.com> > Cc: <ivan@w3.org>, <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, <public-ldp@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Linked Data Platform Working Group Charter comment > Resent-From: <public-ldp@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:49:49 +0000 > > > Hey all, > how about Basic Access Control ontology http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/ > acl ? > > We're using it successfully in a Linked Data context -- in > combination > with foaf:Person and sioc:UserAccount, to express a number of users > and > user groups and their access rights to resources and classes of > resources. > As a result, both authentication and authorization is a matter of a > single > SPARQL query. > > It might be simplistic -- but it's a start? > > Martynas > graphity.org <http://graphity.org> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:05 PM, <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com> wrote: > > Ivan, > > Indeed. [Sigh] If I knew of an access control mechanism that is > mature and > proven in the Linked Data context I would have made a much stronger > statement in favor of addressing the issue. We do not want to engage > in > R&D work (we have made that mistake before ;-) but my great fear is > that > if we merely suggest that someone else will take care of this we may > be > signaling that this is not an issue of paramount importance. > > I don't have any magical answers or advice here, I am merely > expressing > concern... I guess I would like there at least to be some discussion > about > this. Saying that there is no solution and saying that something is > out of > scope should, after all, not be the same thing. > > - Ora > > > On 2012-01-17 9:54 AM, "ext Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> Ora, >> >> I hear you. However (and that may show my complete ignorance...) is >> there >> any access control mechanism out there that has already proven >> itself in >> the area of Linked Data deployment that is in the maturity level of >> standardization? I am a bit concerned about chartering this group >> with an >> essentially R&D work while the other goals are much less so... >> >> Ivan >> >> On Jan 17, 2012, at 15:47 , <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com> wrote: >> >>> As much as I would like to have a "tight scope" for this WG, I >>> have to >>> observe that access control (or more like lack thereof) has often >>> been a >>> problem in Semantic Web/Linked Data projects I have been involved >>> in. >>> Particularly fine-grained access control of Semantic Web data. >>> >>> I fear that deeming access control strictly "out of scope" and >>> hoping >>> that >>> some (so far unspecified) liaison with other groups to solve this >>> problem >>> will only result in the issue not being seen as important enough. >>> >>> My $0.02. >>> >>> - Ora >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Ora Lassila ora.lassila@nokia.com http://www.lassila.org >>> Principal Technologist, Nokia >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2012-01-17 6:25 AM, "ext Michael Hausenblas" >>> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> I'd suggest to improve the following section and be more explicit >>>> regarding the bigger picture [1]: >>>> >>>> [[ >>>> 2.3 Out of Scope >>>> Several possible standards that are out of scope for this group, >>>> such >>>> as those listed below: >>>> >>>> € Access control mechanisms, WebACL, Web Identity >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> Mention that both authentication and authorisation are orthogonal >>>> issues and hence, in order to stay focused and to be successful, >>>> the >>>> WG will not focus on these issues (but liaison with the respective >>>> groups to ensure compatibility and openness). >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WriteWebOfData >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow >>>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre >>>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute >>>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway >>>> Ireland, Europe >>>> Tel. +353 91 495730 <tel:%2B353%2091%20495730> >>>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ >>>> http://sw-app.org/about.html >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 <tel:%2B31-641044153> >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 11:59:56 UTC