- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:38:26 -0400
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>
[snip] >> >> To conclude, while I agree with timbl that a flexible bag is always nice to have, we should make an exception in the case of ACLs. > > > Putting the ACLs in a separate bag doesn't, it seems to me, actually solve the problem of > controlling access to the ACL, unless you use acl:Control I don't remember the specifics but I kinda remember that we couldn't find a way to set the ACLs for a subset of a document (eg. the ACL part of meta). > > However, let me now argue *for* the rel=acl form. > > I would be for making up a new rel=acl relation if it was associated with a very > solid an testable protocol in RWW, in which client can read and change ACLs, > so that we get solid interop between stores and all kinds of clients, including > apps which need to create a series of resources with varying access by varying groups. > > So the spec for rel=acl would not be "points to some access conrol information" but > "Indicates that the server commits to following the RWW-AC: protocol. > > That would be worth a new relationship. And in that case, as the ACL resource pointed to > would be used in very tightly controlled way, there would be no sense in mixing it > with a rather fluid rel=meta bag, and I would agree to go with rel=acl Yes, that is the very reason that Andrei and I had in mind. In practice, <meta> and <acl> are two very different beasts. In fact, I would argue that <meta> is for domain specific data and should never be mixed with protocol specific data, eg. ACLs. So the protocol (for now) only needs 2 kinds of associated resources: * <meta>: the user should feel free to put any data that she wants, in relation with the primary resource. * <acl>: the user can interact with that resource, but following the spec. The server is in charge of enforcing the special semantics related to ACLs. We should not be mistaken by the fact that <meta>, <acl>, and potentially the primary resource as well, all speak RDF. Alexandre. > > timbl > >> >> Andrei >> >> >> http://dig.csail.mit.edu/irc/dig/2013-08-10#T20-19-21 >> >> >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 13:38:32 UTC