- 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