OASIS eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) TC

  • 1.  Planning the work of the TC

    Posted 07-27-2009 22:08 
    




    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


  • 2.  RE: [xacml] Planning the work of the TC

    Posted 07-28-2009 12:38 
    




    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:hal.lockhart@oracle.com]
    Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 
  17:08
    To: xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
    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  


  • 3.  Proposed new work items - was RE: [xacml] Planning the work of the TC

    Posted 07-28-2009 15:22 
    




    I was 
really just trying to plan the agenda for the next 2 or 3 meetings, but new work 
items are always welcome as long as there are people willing to work on them. 
The best way to propose new work is to post to the list (as you have done) and 
to add new issues to the wiki. http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xacml/ Any 
Member (voting or not) can modify the wiki.
    

     
    

    With 
respect to the specific proposals, first speaking as 
co-chair:
    

     
    

    1. The 
work on the generalization of XACML was halted when it was pointed out that the 
TC's Charter specificaly limits it to Access Control. This work could be taken 
up by a new TC, but so far no such proposal for a TC has been made to 
OASIS.
    

     
    

    I will 
comment as an individual in a separate email.
    

     
    

    Hal
    

    
  

    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
    
                                                
    
  
    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:hal.lockhart@oracle.com]
    Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 
    17:08
    To: xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
    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  


Related Content