- From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:14:09 +0000
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Hi, On 25 Jan 2011, at 19:02, Henry Story wrote: > Not sure. > > I think WebID spec and testing interoperability of WebID implementations > is core, as well as issues in browsers that we can see that could improve > things. > > ACLs are not far from the core, and may even be needed to get implementations > going a bit beyond the simplest point. They may even be needed for testing. > > Every little thing we add can create a huge amount of workload. So we have to > be careful :-) Indeed, one year is quite short, and we have to follow the charter to avoid "off-topic" work and provide the expected deliverables on time. However, mentioning ACL and some existing ontologies could be relevant in the requirements document. > For example standardising ACLs could end up require work comparing > all kinds of ACLs ontologies, not an easy task. > > Perhaps the question to ask is: where does not having ACLs start creating > interoperability limitations for WebID implementations? Ie, how far can we > go without them? My feeling is that we could get WebID (authentication) without ACL issues. What people do when the user is authenticated (e.g. use ACL ontology to deliver X or Y) is IMO a matter of the implementation, not of WebID itself. Alex. > > Henry > > On 25 Jan 2011, at 19:42, Nathan wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Quick scope check, is ACL, like http://esw.w3.org/WebAccessControl under the scope of this IG? >> >> Best, >> >> Nathan >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > -- Dr. Alexandre Passant Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2011 19:14:44 UTC