- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:53:46 +0200
- To: bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org>
- Cc: public-rww@w3.org
On 15 September 2011 00:29, bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org> wrote: > Am 13.09.2011 21:32, schrieb Melvin Carvalho: >>> >>> What do you think about my proposal? Somebody has a different approach? >> >> Another possible approach: >> >> use owl : sameAs >> >> If the agent has access return some triples, if not return FORBIDDEN > > How would you handle complex scenarios like G+ in RDF? > > One approach could be a resource per circle. But that would mean you > have to duplicate some of your data. > > It would be possible to spread your triples in a way that there are no > duplicates, but wouldn't that be more complicated to handle than > describing the rules using the ontology I proposed? Yeah it can get complex with unions and intersections of your triples. I'm not saying it's better but just another way. I think it's suitable for more simple use cases such as public data / private data / friends data. Facebook got quite far with this approach. G+ changed the rules a bit. > > And how do you handle write access? If the data doesn't exist there is > no resource to point to. What do you mean by data doesnt exist? If you have write access on a URI you can add or delete a triple. Delete can be quite hard if you have invisible triples tho. > > Maybe there is a simple solution to the problems I've described, but > currently I mainly see disadvantages. Yes agree, but you did ask for another possible approach :) >
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 22:54:21 UTC