[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Proposed new work items - was RE: [xacml] Planning the work of the TC
-----Original Message-----
From: Tyson, Paul H [mailto:PTyson@bellhelicopter.textron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:37 AM
To: Harold Lockhart; xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xacml] Planning the work of the TCThe AZ API is a good thing to work on. It will make it easier for 3rd-party software vendors to make their products work with XACML. We implemented a special-purpose version, so we'll review the submission for points of similarity and difference.If you're asking for other Big Things the TC could work on, I have a couple of suggestions:1. Revive the effort to map XACML policy language to a standard rule language. There is an old document at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/11929/access_control-xacml-3.0-generalization-spec-wd-03.doc. With the imminent release of RIF (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group) it is a good time to consider the feasibility and benefits of standard mechanisms for 1- or 2-way mapping between XACML and RIF.2. Consider formalisms for linking XACML to RDF/OWL at both abstract and concrete levels. I see at least 2 aspects:a. Produce a XACML ontology in RDF/OWLb. Standards or guidelines for mapping XACML attribute ids to RDF PropertiesThe linkage to RDF/OWL would enable integration of XACML systems with enterprise ontologies, and allow use of web-wide standard ontologies for non-enterprise-specific attributes. A SPARQL endpoint (or several) would be a particularly elegant implementation of a PIP. This approach might answer some of the use cases addressed by the AMF proposal.--Paul
From: Harold Lockhart [mailto:hal.lockhart@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 17:08
To: xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xacml] Planning the work of the TCAs everyone is aware, Jam Herman and the OGC folks have proposed a lot of potential changes to the hierachical and multi profiles. Seperately from that I recently posted two new submissions to the list.I suggest that we spend the next two meetings on overviews of the AZ API and AMF respectively. I would like get everyone up to speed and thinking about them and it will also be an opportunity to answer questions and provide additional information relating to them. Further, I am expecting Jan to join the TC soon and would like to hold off on his proposals until he can participate as a member.If no one has any objections, I propose that we spend the bulk of the next call letting Rich give an overview of the API. Then on Aug 13, I will go over the AMF.Any objections, questions, comments?Hal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]