RE: [xacml] Hierarhical resources.. part 0.1

["Daniel Engovatov" <dengovatov@bea.com>]

>I think this captures the discussion thus far (mod some details about
>what the actual Request format should look like). Comments?

Overall - rather close.  I guess I want to see the next iteration of
Anne's
Proposal before I make further suggestions.

In the example, I was thinking the "ancestors" (Adding "resource-" in
the name seems redundant - it is in the resource: namespace) should
normally include the resource-id: resource is its own ancestor.  That
simplifies the most typical rule target: apply a rule to a resource and
all its dependants. 

We are not trying to model resource structure.  I think that our only
goal would be to define a useful scheme to specify applicable rules.

We definitely could reserve some useful names for the typical
hierarchical schemes, such as "resource-parents", but I would not think
they should be mandatory to define.

Daniel.