Re: TAC + roles + resource access control = UAC

On 9/6/12 8:04 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 9/5/12 12:08 PM, Luca Costabello wrote:
>> Kingsley, just a side note: in Shi3ld, we deliberately chose not to 
>> rely on access control lists. Instead, we adopt an attribute-based 
>> authorization mechanism. This allows us to offer more expressive 
>> access control policies, such as location-based or time based 
>> policies. As a side note, we also use SPARQL ASKS to verify access 
>> conditions.
> My point is that are doing something similar but in a manner that 
> works with any ACL ontology. SPARQL ASK is the last resort, and even 
> then, it uses patterns based on terms from the ACL ontology.
>
> As per usual, I am proposing loose coupling of these things.
>
To clarify:

My point is that *we* are doing something similar, but in a manner that 
works with any ACL ontology. SPARQL ASK is the advanced option, and even 
then, it uses patterns based on terms from *any* ACL ontology.

We don't see an ACL ontology as being definitive for RWW. As per usual, 
its about tapping into the "horses for courses" compliance of the 
architecture of the world wide web :-)

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen