RE: beginer question about inferencing

Hello Michael,
First, excuse my poor explanations of the problem, being only a test I
have no formal or any description whatsoever.
El sáb, 05-03-2011 a las 22:24 +0000, Michael Schneider escribió:
> Hi Yoandy, concerning the second question, I still need to make sure whether I correctly understand you:
>  
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Yoandy Rodriguez [mailto:yrodriguezma@uci.cu]
> >Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:45 PM
> >To: Michael Schneider
> >Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
> >Subject: RE: beginer question about inferencing
> >
> >El vie, 04-03-2011 a las 12:17 +0000, Michael Schneider escribió:
> >> Hi Yoandy!
> >>
> >> Not an answer, but I need to ask for clarification. See below:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> >also
> >> >"if user have read access to a file then reading the file is allowed
> >> >else it is forbidden"
> >>
> >> Do you mean:
> >>
> >> [1] "if there /exists/ at least one user ?u
> >>     who has read access to the specific file ?f,
> >>     then ?f is generally readable ("readable(?f)")"
> >>
> >> ? Or do you mean:
> >>
> >> [2] "if the /specific/ user ?u has read access
> >>     to the specific file ?f, then ?u is allowed
> >>     to read ?f ("allowedToRead(?u,?f)")
> >>
> >> ? In the case of [1], reading file ?f would then be forbidden
> >("forbidden(?f)"), if there is no such user having read access to it. In
> >case [2], if the /negation/ of the assertion "hasReadAccess(?u,?f)"
> >holds, then the assertion "forbidden(?u,?f)" is entailed. Which one do
> >you want to express (or maybe a third scenario)?
> 
> [...]
> 
> >Hello Michael,
> 
> [...]
> 
> >In the second expression I want to, if a given user ?user has a
> >permission ?perm who matches any of ?file permissions, then state that
> >the ?user can access the ?file, else state that he can't.
> 
> So, is it the following scenario?
> 
> * There are several individual users;
> * there are several individual files;
> * there is a fixed collection of file permissions (e.g. "read", "write", "delete", etc.);
> * every file provides a certain sub set of file permissions;
> * every user owns a certain sub set of file permissions, where, if he owns a permission ?p, he is then allowed to access /any/ file that provides ?p.
> 
> The last point above is the most important one for me to understand the scenario. 
> 
> To give an example with user Alice and files dailymirror.pdf, phdthesis.tex, and topsecret.pdf:
> 
>    Alice --ownsPermissions--> { read, write }
> 
>    dailymirror.pdf --providesPermissions--> { read, delete }
>    phdthesis.tex   --providesPermissions--> { write, read }
>    topsecret.doc   --providesPermissions--> { delete }
> 
> So, since Alice has generic "read" permission, she may access dailymirror.pdf and phdthesis.tex, which both provide "read" permission. In addition, since Alice also owns "write" permission, there is a second option for her to access phdthesis.tex, which still wants to be written. However, since topsecret.doc only provides "delete" permission and Alice does not own the "delete" permission, she is /not/ allowed to access topsecret.doc.
>  
> Is this what you mean?
This is exactly what I want, a way to classify an action depending on
the intersection of user and file permissions.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> ==============================================================================
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Ralf Reussner,
> Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> ==============================================================================
>

Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 00:06:33 UTC