| [higgins-dev] Re: Original vs. Revised Access Control Policy Proposals |
|
Paul, In the old model, we probably could have said that the <operation> was a multi-valued attribute such that one could express: "john has read and modify access to mary's hatsize attribute" We can still do that with the new proposal, but there will be a bit more data "john has read access to mary's hatsize attribute and modify access to mary's hatsize attribute". Also note that the new proposal could (if operation is indeed multi-valued) allow a statement like: "john has read access to mary's hatsize attribute and write access to bill's phoneNumber attribute" For a given policy statement, what should the cardinality of the subject, and resource (or now operation) parts be? A lot of the systems I'm used to present access control statements in terms of: 1 subject, 1 resource, and N operations. Not saying that's the best or right way to do it, it's just what I'm used to seeing.
<probably an aside> Sometimes the resource implies a collection of sub-resources when there is some kind of explicit hierarchy in the system (which there is in the HDM, what with contexts holding entities, entities holding attrs, attrs holding vals holding perhaps more attrs, etc.) Will we say that "joe has read access to mary's entity" implies read access to all of mary's attributes? Jim
Jim, |
