Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Feb 05 11:24
    kjetilk transferred #196
  • Jan 23 22:45
    elf-pavlik commented #197
  • Jan 23 16:25
    melvincarvalho commented #215
  • Jan 23 14:03
    melvincarvalho commented #215
  • Jan 23 14:03
    melvincarvalho commented #215
  • Jan 23 12:55
    melvincarvalho assigned #215
  • Jan 23 12:54
    melvincarvalho commented #215
  • Jan 23 11:42
    melvincarvalho review_requested #215
  • Jan 17 10:34
    kjetilk transferred #186
  • Jan 17 10:08
    kjetilk commented #193
  • Jan 17 02:12
    justinwb commented #193
  • Jan 16 12:45
    kjetilk commented #193
  • Jan 16 11:24
    csarven review_requested #215
  • Jan 16 10:29
    csarven review_requested #215
  • Jan 16 10:29
    csarven review_requested #215
  • Jan 16 10:29
    csarven review_requested #215
  • Jan 16 10:29
    csarven review_requested #215
  • Jan 16 10:29
    csarven opened #215
  • Jan 16 10:28

    csarven on current-status

    Added Publication Status Agree… (compare)

  • Jan 16 10:17
    kjetilk commented #193
boulderwebdev
@boulderwebdev
:thumbsup: that's way easier
A_A
@Otto-AA
Hey there, I would like to continue working on two javascript libraries for working with acl permissions but would need some clarification of the spec:
Can multiple acl:accessTo values be used in the same document and/or authorization? (solid/web-access-control-spec#68)
Does the value of acl:defaultchange its meaning? (solid/web-access-control-spec#63)
Michiel de Jong
@michielbdejong
@Otto-AA they can live alongside each other and do not influence each other
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
@Otto-AA this is the authoritative version of the W3C ACL ontology: https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl
definitely can use multiple acl:accessTo, it's RDF :)
A_A
@Otto-AA
@michielbdejong I am not sure if I expressed myself clear enough. The questions I raised are two independent questions and not related to each other. Or did I misunderstood your answer?
@namedgraph_twitter Thanks for linking me this version. From what the wiki says it is possible to use multiple acl:accessTo's too. Even though the solid-spec explicitly states that it differs from the wiki version, I think it is safe to go with this definition.
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
@namedgraph_twitter @Otto-AA
re authoritative version of the W3C ontology - that is not quite correct. Solid uses its own specification, the authoritative spec being https://github.com/solid/web-access-control-spec
not the wiki
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
@dmitrizagidulin and that's exactly the problem
it hijacks the same namespace
and adds its own semantics
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
specs... aren't kept on a Wiki. that is not a document or tool that makes it possible to achieve consensus, version the spec, etc. And that Wiki is not attached to any working group or other standards body. The Solid project has no jurisdiction over it
I think the solid's WAC spec is very clear that this is a solid-specific version of the spec
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
that's there to spec about an ontology? http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl is it's own spec
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
I'm not sure how that's hijacking it
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
and it's hosted by the W3C
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
great. who has write access to it?
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
i don't know, probably TimBL
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
maybe. But TimBL has expressed preference for continuing the spec work on the github repo instead, not on the wiki
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
stuff like acl:trustedApp is not even in the ontology file
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
yeah, I agree, that's not good. it needs to be housed somewhere..
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
so the spec can talk about its usage in Solid, but an OWL ontology is a spec of its own
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
oh yeah, now I remember, the discussion over at solid/web-access-control-spec#51
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
so all the properties Solid creates should go into its own namespace
i've raised this multiple times
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
agreed, yeah.
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
the http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl document is fine as it is
because it's more general than Solid
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
so, that issue #51 is where things stand (open and pending, at the moment), seems like.
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
i guess
it's not a big change really, to introduce a namespace
but nobody seems to care
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
yeah, we've been very slow about updating vocabs/ontologies
I suspect part of it has to do with - who has write access to those, and the general governance process, has been unclear
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
the point of OWL ontologies is that they are components and import each other
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
now that governance has been formalized, Panels/workgroups assigned, etc, I think you'll see progress on that front
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
and not piling all semi-related terms onto the same namespace URI
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
agree, yeah
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
for once we agree :)
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
heheheh :)
Michiel de Jong
@michielbdejong
@Otto-AA oh sorry right, i did mis read your questions. Yes, multiple acl:accessTo statements about the same authorisation node are possible, but what matters is that you check whether or not the authorisation node gives access to the resource from which you followed the link. So if you look at /folder/ and see a link header that points you to /.one-big-acl-doc then you need to look only at authorisation nodes in there that have #node acl:accessTo </folder/>, and not to any other authorisation nodes that may exist in that /.one-big-acl-doc
i’ll copy that answer to the issue
Michiel de Jong
@michielbdejong
answered your other question on the ticket, too
sorry that i hadn’t answered them earlier! :)
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@namedgraph_twitter re https://gitter.im/solid/solid-spec?at=5d7ff6712e8fd94630e4817a , you're right but that doesn't mean that it can't be squatted for the time being :) ns/auth/acl is not necessarily "complete" by any sense or formally referred to in any W3C (or other) spec as far I'm aware. So, there is no reason why it can't be updated to include things like trustedApp or not. Whether trustedApp is a good/bad idea is a separate issue and we can address that through open discussion and implementation experience. Clearly there is some interest (a the very least) to know what's a "trusted" app. And the notion of "application" is not something entirely unique to Solid either. It is virtually everywhere. Again, we can discuss its semantics and what it all entails. Would you like to chime through the Solid panels? If you have technical concerns about it, it'd really valuable to know and have it documented so that we can have a better understanding.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@namedgraph_twitter If there isn't an issue for https://gitter.im/solid/solid-spec?at=5d7ff71b62bfc95112fe042e can you please create it? Perhaps in https://github.com/solid/process/blob/master/panels.md#app-authorization 's repo or https://github.com/solid/vocab is fine too I think.
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
@csarven my issue is that W3C had published the ACL long before there was Solid and now Solid acts as if it has authority over it