Duane Nickull wrote:
> My opinion is that "who" makes the assertion is an essential part of
> the association. Their views may not necessarily be 100% correct or
> agreed to by all parties since things like context of use can affect
> semantics. I would support that someone can make a unilateral
> assertion and we have a mechanism whereby a reciprocal association can
> be declared or agreed to.
That is what we have right now (association confirmation). The point is
that the confirmation / unconfirmation and tracking confirmation state
is clumsy and very specific to associations. What about other type of
references other than associations (e.g. ClassificationNode references
to other ClassificatuionNodes as parents - meaning who can extend my
scheme etc.)
Also confirming associations is an unsolicited burden on object owners.
It has also been difficult to implement.
The solution I propose will work in all cases consistently and with more
expressivity and is simpler all around.
>
> One issue may be manageability. Imagine UBL puts its schema into a
> registry and gets 50,000 people each asserting via associations they
> "use" certain objects. The owner of UBL in that registry may not want
> the responsibility of having to respond to each and every case.
That is one of the major issues with the current model. In the
alternative model I propose the way things work is that I decide as
object owner WHO I allow to reference my object and under what
circusmtances. Beyond that I never have to worry about who is making
references. The old way requires me to give my blessing on each
reference on a case by case bases. The new proposed way allows we to
specify the rules under which I allow refences and from then on I do
not have to bother with it.
>
> My $0.02
>
> Duane
>
>
>
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
>>
>> I am working actively on the 2.9 spec (precursor to 3.0). In version
>> 2.5 and earlier we have a concept of
>> Association Confirmation as defined in section 8.6 of ebRIM 2.5. The
>> idea is that in an extramural association
>> (association between objects owned by different parties) if I create
>> an association with someone else's object
>> they MUST confirm that association in order for it to be fully valid.
>> There are clumsy ways to confirm and
>> unconfirm an extramural Association described in 8.6.2 and 8.6.3.
>>
>> In version 2.9 we will add clarifications to the XACML feature to
>> define precisely how fine grained access
>> control can control WHO gets to REFERENCE a RegistryObject and under
>> what circumstances. The WHO is
>> the Subject, the REFERENCE is the Action and the RegistryObject is
>> the resource.
>>
>> For example you will be able to define an ACP that say:
>>
>> I allow a reference to my object to be created only if all the
>> following conditions are met:
>>
>> a) The subject making the reference has role "ProjectLeader"
>>
>> b) that reference is from an Association instance
>>
>> c) the reference is being made via the sourceObject property of
>> Association
>>
>> d) the value of the associationType attribute in association
>> identifies the "Supercedes" associationType
>>
>> Given this powerful and flexible capability it seems very clumsy and
>> unnecessary to have the
>> existing Association confirmation feature.
>>
>> I would like to propose that we remove Association Confirmation
>> feature and instead leverage the
>> reference Access Control feature to control who can create an
>> extramural association to someone else's
>> objects. This simplifies the spec greatly and can also be another
>> example where our specs use a few
>> good primitive features to support higher level features or
>> requirements.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
--
Regards,
Farrukh
