On 1/30/14 5:47 PM, Alfredo Serafini wrote:
this is truly simple and yet powerful... my only concern is about how simple is to mantain that?
Depends on your platform. In my case it's trivial because data access polices & acls, linked data deployment, and HTTP services integral features of Virtuoso [1] :)
[1] http://bit.ly/1frxwqZ -- page describing Virtuoso's fine-grained acls and data access policies functionality .
Kingsley
2014-01-30 Kingsley Idehen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:On 1/30/14 5:10 PM, Alfredo Serafini wrote:uhm, I have a question about the scheme differences. This could be used maybe to expose the "same" resource projecting only public values (http) and value accessible to specific user on secure connection?Yes! Basically, I use the very pattern you outline above to control access to some of the SPARQL endpoints I maintain i.e., only certain identities are allowed to perform specific operations e.g., using the sponger instance to crawl as part of follow-your-nose exploration that includes RDF transformation etc.. Simple example I am the only one that can apply new data to my glossary to terms doc [1], everyone else can read. In other cases, I assign privileges to identities that are associated with a group or the result of SPARQL ASK evaluations etc.. All of that happens as part of ACL configuration and (in my case) mapping making the coreference a part of my configuration setup as opposed to doing it via owl:sameAs relations.(https) I mean: apart from the fact that we could have different formats, do you think that a use case would actually be in exposing also data with limited public access?That's what I do :-) [1] http://bit.ly/1hFRCxh -- Glossary of Terms Doc (I am the only one that can update that) [2] https://kingsley.idehen.net/about/html/www.adweek.com/news/technology/wow-hack-shows-twitter-handles-are-worth-big-bucks-155343 -- You will get an empty page (unless some identity associated with the group that I allow to sponge get there before you). KingsleyAlfredo 2014-01-30 Kingsley Idehen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: On 1/30/14 1:09 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:If not bad, is there any provision for allowing that an HTTPS URI that only differs in the scheme part from HTTPS URI be identified as the same resource? http and https are fundamentally different resources, but you can link them together with owl : sameAs, I think ...Yes. You simply use an <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs> relation to indicate that a common entity is denoted [1] by the http: and https: scheme URIs in question. [1] http://bit.ly/1fqJ5yv -- Denotes Relation [2] http://bit.ly/Lf4TSg -- Referent [3] http://bit.ly/1bD2eZs -- Identifier.--Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> Twitter Profile:https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen--Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> Twitter Profile:https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
