Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Comparison with ESS Access Requests and Grants #317

Open
michielbdejong opened this issue Sep 6, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Comparison with ESS Access Requests and Grants #317

michielbdejong opened this issue Sep 6, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@michielbdejong
Copy link

I was just reading https://docs.inrupt.com/ess/latest/security/access-requests-grants/ and it seemed that ESS access requests:

An agent sends an access request to the resource owner. In ESS, the access request is serialized as a VC.

are quite similar to this panel's Data Needs:

A given Social Agent or Application expresses their access needs by providing one or more Access Need Groups to the Social Agent controlling the data they require access to.

And that ESS access grants:

For an approved request, ESS creates an access grant with an approved status.

are quite similar to this panel's Access Authorizations:

An Access Authorization records the decision of a Social Agent to grant access to some portion of data in their control to another Agent.

Given the existence of these two apparently similar systems within our project's community, would maybe it make sense to create a library that abstracts the differences and can deal with both transparently?

@woutermont
Copy link
Contributor

I believe one of the first things to do once the WG starts, is to align these two models. They are almost identical in approach differing only in some naming and parameters. I would have loved to do that in the context of the CG / Interop Panel, but Inrupt apparently does not.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants