Re: Triple Access Control

Am 15.09.2011 00:53, schrieb Melvin Carvalho:
> 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.

Yes, you are right. Most of the current FOAF files are static. For these
cases your approach + WebAccessControl would work even today.

> 
>>
>> 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.

This approach can only control write access to a resource, but doesn't
work on properties/triples level. Maybe reducing the write access to
object values of existing triples could work.

> 
>>
>> 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 23:22:19 UTC