{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/35","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/35/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/35/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/35/events","html_url":"https://github.com/solid/solid/issues/35","id":128304561,"number":35,"title":"Get rid of foaf dependency in ACLs","user":{"login":"sandhawke","id":110902,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/110902?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/sandhawke","html_url":"https://github.com/sandhawke","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/sandhawke/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/sandhawke/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/sandhawke/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/sandhawke/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/sandhawke/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/sandhawke/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/sandhawke/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/sandhawke/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/sandhawke/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":21,"created_at":"2016-01-23T05:43:37Z","updated_at":"2016-01-24T21:21:54Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Right now the universal ACL is defined in the spec in terms of foaf:Agent.   This makes a critical security system (acls) dependent on an ontology maintained without an open governance process or organizational backing.\r\n\r\nSuggestions: use rdfs:Resource instead of foaf:Agent.\r\n\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/comments/174342726","html_url":"https://github.com/solid/solid/issues/35#issuecomment-174342726","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/35","id":174342726,"user":{"login":"bblfish","id":124506,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/124506?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bblfish","html_url":"https://github.com/bblfish","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bblfish/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bblfish/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bblfish/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bblfish/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bblfish/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bblfish/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bblfish/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bblfish/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bblfish/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-01-24T21:21:54Z","updated_at":"2016-01-24T21:21:54Z","body":"yes, `foaf:member` implies `foaf:Group` as subject.\r\n\r\n@danbri will have information about deployment of foaf. It's the best known vocabulary by the group that has been developing SoLiD, and it gave us something to work with without having to get into huge debates. It has the advantage of being implemented.\r\n\r\nI would be ok to move to schema.org see [issue 23](https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/issues/23) if it makes sense here, or even to use the equivalent owl or rdfs membership relation. ( not sure what they are). But is it really worth doing that before we get a wider group of people supporting it? (people with weight such as IBM, Oracle, etc...) so that we can have a serious consensus. Otherwise we risk making a decision that will again later be overturned by a different group, which would just slow us down. \r\n\r\nAs far as reasoning goes, I was thinking the way to do that is to add it slowly. When one group feels they can tackle reasoning, just add it, document it and the implementation problems, then see how many folks jump on board. (There will be lots of good reasons to do it I am sure, but it's work to do it, and if someone provides the JS libs to go with it that will make adoption faster).\r\n"}}