- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:10:46 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
> To take a concrete example. One might wish to have a rule that says that
> any user who is not in "this" specific set of authorization statements
> is not authorized and should be rejected. This could be expressed as NAF
> negation "scoped" to statements from the authorization list, or as
> general negation over an authorization predicate which is definitively
> defined by the closed list of assertions or as a set non-membership
> predicate acting over a closed set of authorized users derived from the
> list. I'd agree these are different but they all seem to be within the
> spirit of what was mentioned at the workshop (at least to the extent
> that I was aware of such discussions).
>
> [Not sure this is the right place for this discussion, but then I'm
> confused about the purpose of this list.]
[ This list is the right place for this discussion, I think, yes. ]
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 15:10:50 UTC