W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Beginning work on an official Web Access Control spec.

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:22:26 +0100
Message-ID: <525FE492.2020306@w3.org>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
CC: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>, Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
I'm checking internally what we might be able to offer. Off the top of 
my head I wouldn't discount being able to use Zakim as well as the tracker.

This is clearly an interesting and important subject and we have it on 
the radar so I'll watch how this discussion evolves with keen interest.

Phil.

On 17/10/2013 14:09, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 17 October 2013 15:05, Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> For those of you who know me, please skip this paragraph. For the others,
>> I would first like to introduce myself. My name is Andrei Sambra and for
>> the past three years I have been involved in different W3C groups, such as
>> WebID, LDP and RWW (co-chair). As an advocate of Semantic Web technologies,
>> especially those taking user privacy into consideration, I am currently
>> working on two projects, MyProfile [1] (WebID provider / social network)
>> and RWW.IO [2], the later including support for WebID, LDP and WAC [3].
>> RWW.IO is a Read/Write Web-based personal data store.
>>
>> Over the past few years, we have noticed that Linked Data is no longer a
>> technology limited to the public space, finding its way into consumer
>> applications. As a consequence, it becomes increasingly important to be
>> able to protect access to private/sensitive resources. To this regard, the Web
>> Access Control (WAC) ontology [3] has been put together by Tim Berners-Lee,
>> offering the basic means to set up ACLs. Due to its nature (i.e. an
>> ontology) however, it does not provide the formalism necessary to implement
>> it in order to achieve interoperability, nor does it provide an organized
>> space where it can be discussed and improved.
>>
>> The reason behind writing the email is that I would like to know how many
>> people are interested in participating to the standardization process of a
>> Web Access Control spec.
>>
>> The Read Write Web community group has so far been the host of inquiries
>> regarding the WAC ontology. However, being a community group, it does not
>> have access to W3C's teleconference system, nor to the issue tracking
>> system. Depending on your interest in a WAC spec, and the preliminary
>> discussions we might have, we may very well have to create a dedicated
>> working group. For now however, I suggest we use the public RWW list (
>> public-rww@w3.org) in order to coordinate the efforts on this subject.
>>
>> Please let me know how you stand on this subject and perhaps suggest a way
>> to count who is interested in participating (doodle, something else maybe?).
>>
>
> I'd been interested in this topic for many years, and would love to help
> out.
>
> Actually each community group does have access to a W3C issue tracker:
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/rww/track/
>
> Telcons I'm not sure about, tho.
>
>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Andrei
>>
>> [1] https://my-profile.eu/
>> [2] https://rww.io/
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl
>>
>

-- 

Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 13:23:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:52 UTC