{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/51","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/51/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/51/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/51/events","html_url":"https://github.com/solid/solid/issues/51","id":129997585,"number":51,"title":"do we need acl:Control?","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},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/labels/question","name":"question","color":"cc317c"},{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/labels/wontfix","name":"wontfix","color":"ffffff"}],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":8,"created_at":"2016-01-30T15:20:34Z","updated_at":"2016-02-08T00:34:35Z","closed_at":"2016-02-04T19:15:33Z","body":"I implemented [WebAccessControl](https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl) in [rww-play](https://github.com/read-write-web/rww-play) but could not find a use for acl:Control. I had trouble at the time also quite understanding how it would work. If I remember correctly its aim was to specifying access control restrictions on the acl file itself.\r\n\r\nI was able to do without by specifying the following generic acls `wac:include`ed from other acls. Though one could do it on a case by case basis too.\r\n\r\n```Turtle\r\n[] acl:accessToClass [ acl:regex \"https://jack.example/.*[.]acl\" ];\r\n   acl:mode acl:Read;\r\n   acl:agentClass foaf:Agent .\r\n[] acl:accessToClass [ acl:regex \"https://jack.example/.*\" ];\r\n   acl:mode acl:Write, acl:Read;\r\n   acl:agent <card#me> .\r\n```\r\n\r\nPresumably the acl file should specify itself as its own acl file in the http `Link`header (I don't think I have implemented that there.) Off the top of my head this should do:\r\n\r\n```\r\nLink: <>; rel=\"acl\"\r\n```"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/comments/181146488","html_url":"https://github.com/solid/solid/issues/51#issuecomment-181146488","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/solid/solid/issues/51","id":181146488,"user":{"login":"timbl","id":1254848,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1254848?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/timbl","html_url":"https://github.com/timbl","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/timbl/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/timbl/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/timbl/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/timbl/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/timbl/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/timbl/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/timbl/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/timbl/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/timbl/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-02-08T00:34:35Z","updated_at":"2016-02-08T00:34:35Z","body":"I imagine that @deiu closed the issue because @bblfish was talking about not understanding the design at the top, which is not in itself an issue with the spec, and further down about arbitrary alternative designs. When something like acl:Control has been a consensus for a while and implemented multiple places,  it is not constructive to bring up issues like this, which just wonder about the design,  unless a severe reason has been found why the design itself would have a serious failure mode.  We need to move forward."}}