- From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 21:05:51 +0200
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
On 2014-05-27 19:23, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > Many of us are now using web ACLs on a regular basis. > > A rule may look like: > > <> > <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#accessTo> <.>, <> ; > <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#agent> <http://melvincarvalho.com/#me> ; > <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#mode> <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#Read>, <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#Write> . > > This essentially says that my user ID can have read and write access to the named resource. > > I thought it might be an interesting idea to extend this type of access control to allow payment protected resources. > > So each server will maintain a balance for each user, as is typical with many commercial business models these days. > > If the user does not have any credit the server will return a 402 HTTP response code, explaining the cost of the item and how they can top up their balance. This could either be via a traditional payment method such as Euros, or, say, via a balance in crypto currencies, or as part of a loyalty / reward scheme that the web site issues. > > I'm wondering if we can extend the vocab we have to add payments? > > Perhaps a simple way would be to subclass #accessTo with #paidAccessTo > > Then have in the ACL rule a simple payment amount (or rule) > > Then say something like: > > <#amount> 0.001^^BTC > > Anyone have any thoughts on whether this could be implemented? I must confess that I understand zilch of this. If this is something happening between the browser (user) and a server in an authenticated session, it has no relevance in a standards context. If this is rather involving different servers or agents, you must describe what they are and how they get access to this information. Anders
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 19:06:28 UTC