Extending Context Descriptions in Semantics-Aware Access Control

  • E. Damiani
  • S. De Capitani di Vimercati
  • C. Fugazza
  • P. Samarati
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4332)

Abstract

Security is a crucial concern for commercial and mission critical applications in Web-based environments. In our model, context information associated with Access Control management policies is defined according to basic operators that can be represented using the Web Ontology Language. Standard inference procedures of Description Logics are being used to check the consistency of context information referred to by policy conditions and, more interestingly, to pre-process context information for grounding policy propagation and enabling conflict resolution. In this paper, we extend the model to encompass part-of relations between entities in context descriptions and, consequently, revise the policy propagation criteria being applied to the model to take into account the newly introduced relations. Finally, we exemplify modality conflicts arising from part-of relations, a category of extensional conflicts (i.e., inconsistencies related to individuals) that cannot be foreseen by looking at the terminology underlying context information.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    The Common Logic Standard (CL), http://cl.tamu.edu/
  2. 2.
    Jena: A Semantic Web Framework for Java, http://jena.sourceforge.net/
  3. 3.
    Mereology, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2004/entries/mereology/
  4. 4.
    OMG Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM), http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/03-08-01.pdf
  5. 5.
    OMG Unified Modeling Language (UML), version 2.0, http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    W3C Resource Description Framework (RDF). W3C Specifications, http://www.w3.org/RDF
  8. 8.
    W3C Web Ontology Language (OWL). W3C Specifications, http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL
  9. 9.
    XHTML 1.0 The Extensible Hypertext Markup Language, http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
  10. 10.
    XML Path Language (XPath) 1.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath
  11. 11.
    XML Topic Maps (XTM), http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/
  12. 12.
    Ardagna, C.A., Damiani, E., De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Fugazza, C., Samarati, P.: Offline Expansion of XACML Policies Based on P3P Metadata. In: Lowe, D.G., Gaedke, M. (eds.) ICWE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3579, pp. 363–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bertino, E., Jajodia, S., Samarati, P.: Access control in object-oriented database systems - some approaches and issues. In: Advanced Database Systems, London, UK, pp. 17–44. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brockmans, S., Volz, R., Eberhart, A., Löffler, P.: Visual Modeling of OWL DL Ontologies Using UML. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 198–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cook, S., Kleppe, A., Mitchell, R., Rumpe, B., Warmer, J., Wills, A.C.: The amsterdam manifesto on OCL. In: Clark, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) Object Modeling with the OCL. LNCS, vol. 2263, pp. 115–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    d’Amato, C., Fanizzi, N., Esposito, F.: A semantic similarity measure for expressive Description Logics. In: Pettorossi, A. (ed.) Proceedings of Convegno Italiano di Logica Computazionale (CILC 2005), June 21-22, 2005, Rome, IT (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Damiani, E., De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Fugazza, C., Samarati, P.: Modality Conflicts in Semantics-Aware Access Control. In: Sixth International Conference on Web Engineering (ICWE 2006), Palo Alto, CA, USA, July 11-14, 2006. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davis, J.P., Bonnell, R.D.: A Taxonomy of Propositional Logic Constraint Patterns for the Unified Modeling Language, http://www.cse.sc.edu/~jimdavis/Research/Papers-PDF/TKDE-paper-040113.pdf
  20. 20.
    Falkovych, K., Sabou, M., Stuckenschmidt, H.: UML for the Semantic Web: Transformation-Based Approaches. In: Omelayenko, B., Klein, M. (eds.) Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, pp. 92–106. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.: Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. Journal of Web Semantics 1(4), 345–357 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kothari, C.R., Russomanno, D.J.: Modeling Logic-Based Constraints in OWL. In: IASTED International Conference on Databases and Applications, part of the 22nd Multi-Conference on Applied Informatics, Innsbruck, Austria, February 17-19 (2004), http://engronline.ee.memphis.edu/objectoriented/411-160.pdf
  23. 23.
    Leacock, C., Chodorow, M.: Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification. In: Fellbaum, C. (ed.) WordNet, An Electronic Lexical Database, pp. 265–283. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin, D.: An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: Proc. 15th International Conf. on Machine Learning, Madison, WI, USA, July 24-27, pp. 296–304. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lupu, E.C., Sloman, M.S.: Conflict Analysis for Management Policies. In: Proceedings of the 5th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network management IM 1997, San Diego, CA, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Resnik, P.: Using Information Content to Evaluate Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), August 20-25, Montréal, Québec, CA, pp. 448–453 (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Resnik, P.: Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy: An Information-Based Measure and its Application to Problems of Ambiguity in Natural Language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 11, 95–130 (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sandhu, R.: Rationale for the RBAC96 family of access control models. In: RBAC 1995: Proceedings of the first ACM Workshop on Role-based access control, pp. 9–17. ACM Press, New York (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Storey, V.C.: Understanding semantic relationships. The VLDB Journal 2(4), 455–488 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Veres, C.: Aggregation in Ontologies: Practical Implementations in OWL. In: Lowe, D.G., Gaedke, M. (eds.) ICWE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3579, pp. 285–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wu, Z., Palmer, M.: Verb semantics and lexical selection. In: 32nd. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, pp. 133–138 (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Damiani
    • 1
  • S. De Capitani di Vimercati
    • 1
  • C. Fugazza
    • 1
  • P. Samarati
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Tecnologie dell’InformazioneUniversità degli Studi di MilanoCremaItaly

Personalised recommendations