The 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/OWL
b. Standards or guidelines for
mapping XACML attribute ids to RDF Properties
The 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:]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009
17:08
To:
Subject: [xacml]
Planning the work of the TC
As 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
