- From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:14:30 +0200
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
* [2011-06-22 16:00:49 +0100] Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> écrit: ] explain to me how the convention you espouse enables me confine access ] to a SPARQL endpoint for: ] ] A person identified by URI based Name (WebID) that a member of a ] foaf:Group (which also has its own WebID). This is not a use case I encounter much. Usually I have some application code that needs write access to the store and some public code (maybe javascript in a browser, maybe some program run by a third party) that needs read access. If the answer is to teach my application code about WebID, it's going to be a hard sell because really I want to be working on other things than protocol plumbing. If you then go further and say that *all* access to the endpoint needs to use WebID because of resource-management issues, then every client now needs to do a bunch of things that end with shaving a yak before they can even start on working on whatever they were meant to be working on. On the other hand, arranging things so that access control can be done by existing tools without burdening the clients is a lot easier, if less general. And easier is what we want working with RDF to be. Cheers, -w -- William Waites <mailto:ww@styx.org> http://river.styx.org/ww/ <sip:ww@styx.org> F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB 3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 15:15:02 UTC