Difference between revisions of "User talk:Latha Serevi/OGP trust proposal based on secure groups"
Dale Innis (talk | contribs) (Is this equivalent to property-language?) |
Dale Innis (talk | contribs) m (→Is this equivalent to property-language?: add my name) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Not to say that this is a ''better'' way of modeling it; just want to confirm that it's expressing the same basic function. | Not to say that this is a ''better'' way of modeling it; just want to confirm that it's expressing the same basic function. | ||
In either case what we're left with is deciding which groups / which properties each entity / controller in the system ought to support. I'm perfectly willing to let people talk in group-language or property-language or any other semantically equivalent language they want to talk in. That out of the way :) we can start talking about the next level of semantics: which queries the AD needs to support, which queries the RD does, etc. | In either case what we're left with is deciding which groups / which properties each entity / controller in the system ought to support. I'm perfectly willing to let people talk in group-language or property-language or any other semantically equivalent language they want to talk in. That out of the way :) we can start talking about the next level of semantics: which queries the AD needs to support, which queries the RD does, etc. -- [[User:Dale Innis|Dale Innis]] 06:37, 10 September 2008 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:37, 10 September 2008
Is this equivalent to property-language?
Having a somewhat different cognitive style :) I tend to think of this in terms of properties rather than groups. Would it be equivalent to say that we want to be able to ask a given entity E whether or not a given subject S has property P? (Where P is E-relative in the general case.) And to be able to ask E for a list (if it's willing to provide it) of all subjects S that have property P? Does that leave anything out?
Not to say that this is a better way of modeling it; just want to confirm that it's expressing the same basic function.
In either case what we're left with is deciding which groups / which properties each entity / controller in the system ought to support. I'm perfectly willing to let people talk in group-language or property-language or any other semantically equivalent language they want to talk in. That out of the way :) we can start talking about the next level of semantics: which queries the AD needs to support, which queries the RD does, etc. -- Dale Innis 06:37, 10 September 2008 (PDT)