- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:29:31 +0200
- To: bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org>
- Cc: public-rww@w3.org, fritztho@gmail.com
On 1 September 2011 01:24, bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org> wrote: > I have already mentioned the vocab I'm using for triple access control > on the RWW blog. Link? (You did press "Publish"?) This topic is obviously very relevant to the group so I've added a page on the Wiki for links & notes : http://www.w3.org/community/rww/wiki/AccessControl My first impressions are that the modelling makes sense - I do like the idea of have granular access down to the triple level. I assume acl:Control is about being about to modify the ACL itself. How would you go about implementing a control system/the access itself? The triple-level bit does complicate matters, I can only think you'd let the user supply a 'proposed changes' graph (either as a SPARQL update or something like Talis' changeset graph) and check individual triple changes against the ACL. An alternate approach might be to maintain the graphs over which access control is needed as a set of one-triple (or slightly more :) named graphs. I'm currently playing with Fuseki and I reckon this would be straightforward there as you can configure the SPARQL engine to see the default graph as the union of all the named graphs. (Although Fuseki itself doesn't yet have any kind of access control/security). Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 08:29:59 UTC