- From: Bob Ferris <zazi@smiy.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:20:44 +0200
- To: public-rww@w3.org
Hi bergi, On 09/15/2011 12:29 AM, bergi 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. You can utilise a named-graph-approach for circle that is able to handle (identifiable) triples* over multiple graphs**. In my modelling approach described at [1] I tried to cover this issue. > > 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? > > And how do you handle write access? If the data doesn't exist there is > no resource to point to. > You can deploy an access-controlled write access direct on the URI/URL where do you like to create the resource or on a so called "parent resource" that is related to the resource you would like to create (see HTTPbis draft for a definition of this term). Both approaches should be RESTful. > Maybe there is a simple solution to the problems I've described, but > currently I mainly see disadvantages. > Well this a rather complex problem. It might still be the simplest solution ;) Cheers, Bo *) statement identifier **) this is currently not covered by the existing Named Graph specification, see [2] [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2011Jan/0001.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2011Jan/0001.html
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 06:21:39 UTC