Differences between revisions 1 and 2
Revision 1 as of 2008-06-26 12:26:08
Size: 1758
Editor: kfc
Comment: Created by the PackagePages action.
Revision 2 as of 2008-09-25 07:00:53
Size: 1795
Editor: bam
Comment: closing old XACML action
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 3: Line 3:
'''First Draft'''

 .
Assumption: Authentification is done outside DOMS. We are only concerned with authorization.
 . Documentation: Seems Fedora Authorization with XACML Policy provides what we need, but we have not done a full analysis of 'what we need'.
 . '''Assumption''': Authentification is done outside DOMS. We are only concerned with authorization.
 . Evaluation: It seems Fedora Authorization with XACML Policy provides what we need.
   . ''What we need'': W
e have decided to use licenses in DOMS only to restrict who can view what material. See [:DataModel:].
Line 8: Line 7:
 . Test: postponed

FedoraXACML Evaluation Summary

  • Assumption: Authentification is done outside DOMS. We are only concerned with authorization.

  • Evaluation: It seems Fedora Authorization with XACML Policy provides what we need.
    • What we need: We have decided to use licenses in DOMS only to restrict who can view what material. See [:DataModel:].

    • We can specify an object-specific policy within the object's policy datastream. This datastream can refer to a policy in a 'license object' (rights object). The XACML policy of this license object can however not include a policy from a 'parent' license object. Note that this means that we have both a 'hasLicense' relation from object A to it's license object B and a reference from the policy datastream in A to a policy datastream in B. This means that there is a risk the two references get 'out of sync'. We however need the policy reference, and we want the RELS-EXT relation, as the license object also holds a textual description...

  • We have decides on a DOMS architecture with a journaling style Fedora-Front and Fedora-Back, and we would like to enforce only repository wide policies for Fedora-Front (for the in-house DOMS manager GUI)

    <param name="VALIDATE-OBJECT-POLICIES-FROM-DATASTREAM" value="false"/>
    and both object policies and repository wide policies for Fedora-Back (for the read-only oai-harvester).
  • We want full edit rights for all in-house users, i.e. all users of the GUI.
  • Questions:
    • Who edits XACML policies? How? When?
    • Which attributes do we need? 'Access to material with this License'-attributes? Who manages those (i.e. manages which users have which attributes)?
    • Do we want to be able to create new attributes in connection with new collections?

FedoraXACML Evaluation Summary (last edited 2010-03-17 13:13:03 by localhost)