- From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:49:08 +0100
- To: Joe Presbrey <presbrey@gmail.com>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, foaf-protocols <foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org>
On 21 Apr 2010, at 16:58, Joe Presbrey wrote:
>> Sadly, I'm going to have to implement the above in the short term though
>> as can't for the life of me see any other way of expressing:
>>
>> if graph <Gx> holds the triple <group> <has_member> <webid> .
>> where <Gx> is found by dereferencing <group>
>> where <group> and <has_member> are defined in the ACL
>> where <webid> is only known at runtime after checking foaf+ssl.
>
> I'm not sure about the Gx dereference at this point. I guess this is
> analogous to multiple groups being defined in the same graph and
> distinguished by fragment. Are you planning to do this like:
> defrag(group)? Along these lines I think Apache people like
> AuthGroupFile in .htaccess which explicitly declares what "graphs" are
> trusted for authorization. Maybe you aren't counting this as another
> way of expressing, but in SPARQL I would say:
>
> ASK {
> GRAPH <acl> {
> ?acl acl:accessTo <uri>; acl:mode acl:Read; acl:accessClass <group> .
> }
> GRAPH <group> {
> <group> <has_member> <webid> .
> }
> }
yes, a SPARQL query such as the above, if the engine knows to go and dereference the Graph ids,
is close to the N3 rules I was thinking of.
The OWL inferencing is then done inside the graphs such as <group>.
Henry
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 16:50:08 UTC