- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:25:39 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>
- Cc: public-ldp@w3.org
>> "The Working Group will not normatively specify solutions for access >> control and authentication for Linked Data. However the Working Group >> will identify, based on a set of real world use cases, requirements for >> necessary authentication and authorization technologies." I'm all for keeping it as it is. The main point was/is to state what is out of scope (auth/auth/ACL) but in the same moment also explain how we deal with it, as it is a necessary building block to successfully deploy any sort of app in the domain. Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel.: +353 91 495730 WebID: http://sw-app.org/mic.xhtml#i On 19 Mar 2012, at 13:09, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 16:28 -0500, Paul Tyson wrote: >> Section 2. Scope. >> >> "The Working Group will not normatively specify solutions for access >> control and authentication for Linked Data. However the Working Group >> will identify, based on a set of real world use cases, requirements for >> necessary authentication and authorization technologies." >> >> I understand how a strict construction of "linked data" would rule this >> out of scope, but realistically no one will be able to champion LDP in >> an enterprise with only a set of "requirements" for the security aspect. >> In the enterprise, security and access control must be built in from the >> ground up, not added as an afterthought. >> >> Industry doesn't need yet another set of requirements for access >> control. There are already several good models: XACML seems the most >> nearly suited for LDP, but there are also RIF and RuleML (and >> LegalRuleML recently started as an OASIS TC). The XACML TC has started >> work on a RESTful profile for XACML. >> >> Please consider upgrading this scope statement from "will >> identify...requirements" to something like "will specify an abstract >> interface and notional architecture by which LDP systems can >> interoperate with RESTful authentication and authorization systems". > > Personally, I agree with you, but I've heard otherwise from some folks. > Maybe people who disagree can speak up and we can try to work this out > here? > > -- Sandro > >> Regards, >> --Paul >> >> On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 12:13 -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> After various discussions, we've rewritten the Linked Data Platform >>> (LDP) draft charter. New version is here: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter >>> >>> The diff is linked from there, but only the last few paragraphs >>> (standard charter stuff) are the similar enough for the diff to be >>> useful. >>> >>> At this point, we're expecting to formally propose this to the W3C >>> membership within a week or two, so please review it soon. >>> >>> -- Sandro >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 13:26:13 UTC