Look also at the work on a Policy Aware Web, for example: http://www.w3.org/2004/09/Policy-Aware-Web-acl.pdf I think this approach is too heavyweight but we can discuss. All the best, Ashok
On 10/19/2013 4:26 AM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
Hello again, Thank you all for expressing your interest. I would like to keep this thread open for a few more days, to get an estimate of how many people are interested in participating. Until then, please familiarize yourselves with the WAC ontology (in case you haven't already), and maybe compile a list of topics you feel we should bring up. Best, Andrei On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Erich Bremer <er...@ebremer.com <mailto:er...@ebremer.com>> wrote: Hi Andrei, I am interested in participating. I've been looking to add WAC to VIVO to work with the WebID4VIVO that we have created to allow inter-VIVO operations. -- Erich Erich Bremer http://www.ebremer.com On 10/17/13 9:05 AM, Andrei Sambra 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 <http://RWW.IO> [2], the later including support for WebID, LDP and WAC [3]. RWW.IO <http://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-...@w3.org <mailto:public-...@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?). Best wishes, Andrei [1] https://my-profile.eu/ [2] https://rww.io/ [3] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl <http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl>
