Re: WAC and temporal access

(putting WebID list on BCC, as this is a RWW topic)

On 30 Nov 2012, at 12:03, Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl> wrote:

> In the last teleconf, we decided to give some examples which WAC do not support. My two cents in this subject is WAC don't support temporal access.
> 
> @prefix acl: <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#> .
> @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
> 
> [] acl:accessTo   <card>;
>   acl:mode       acl:Write;
>   acl:agentClass foaf:Agent;
>   NEW:validity   ??? .
> 
> I propose to extend acl vocabluary to validity property, which should be in range to one on OWL time class [1].

That sounds interesting. Can you build up some use cases for this?

Notice that this is going to be problematic because by doing this you are going
to be shifting the meaning of what an acl:Access is. 

Don't forget that a good ontology should monotonic, that is if you add facts to a 
graph you don't falsify previously existing facts. In other words: interpreters who 
don't know about your NEW:validity relations MUST not be coming to false 
conclusions when they reason about the data minus your NEW:validity relation.
It is quite obvious why this is a very important property of the semantic web: it 
allows us to grow without breaking up agents with limited reasoning power.

So you would have to either convince everyone deploying the acl ontology that they 
need to change their semantics of acl:Access to always include temporal reasoning
from the start, or you have to model your NEW ontology differently.

Henry

> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/
> 
> Cheers,
> Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/