[Appeal] sharing, tenor, content manager

[Stefan Werden]

* Jan Muehlig <jan.muehlig at relevantive.de> [050418 12:24]:
> sharing
> This is an attempt to map sharing with a tenor and a content manager. 
> Probably, some of you are much further in thinking this through.
> 
> 
> As the local hard disk is a concept that is becoming more and more
> confuse and obsolete, and computers "normally" being connected in some
> way, accessing objects anywhere is just normal. Hence the "where is my
> file on the hard disk" is becoming less important (as long as you can 
> find it at any time). However, there may be psychological reasons, users 
> want to be assured that their file is somewhere safe. So we surely need 
> some substitute for that, until the users have trust in not losing objects.

I think we must take state of the art computer designs in account. So
today and tomorrow we will have local storage on any computer device.
I agree to the vision that at least on some devices local storage
becomes obsolete. But i also know that most visions that did not took
the existing systems and theire roadmap into account always resulted in
a misssuccess.

> 
> If the boundaries between local devices and network ressource become
> fuzzy, the "owner" of the objects must somehow be able to control who
> can access them. Most current systems can control access, although with
> little granuarity.

Yes, exactly. I'm personally don't trust any foreign instances storing
informations, expecially in us where "glass life" is common. In germany
we follow us.

> 
> So far, there is nothing special here. But if Tenor collects (meta-)data
> about objects, the question arises: how much of the meta data about
> objects do I want to share? If I share (or send via Email) an image to
> person X, I may not want to know her the website from which I downloaded
> it, or the Camera I used to take it. Perhaps lot's of metainformation
> makes only sense in my local context (if object referers are not global) 
> and get meaningless when shared. But still there is a lot that makes 
> sense, and which I do not want to share.

Behind this I think we need to define what is a copy of a file. Copying
a file can have multible results! 

> 
> The challenge then is to find an intuitive, flexible and reliable way to
> define what the others "see". What pops in mind is a kind of border,
> domain border, that let's through only certain things. A kind of
> firewall. The Tenor firewall. In its most rigid mode, it razors down
> everything except for the things inside the object (file). It is simply 
> not transported through the firewall.

agree
> 
> But this gets more complicated if I store something on a DVD. In this
> case I may fall back to my dvd-firewall-settings, but sometimes I want
> to store all meta data, or some of it (backup e.g.). I need some kind of 
> config to define what is stored. Of course, it must be intuitive and 
> reliable.

I feel that the we have a concept of ACL and we may spread this concept
to our context informations. My experiance is the more complicated the
rules the less they are used. In most of the cases the classical unix
style user,group,other fits for most purposis, even enterprises will
need more. Therefore the ACL concept is interesting for me.
> 
> I am no expert in security concepts, so I can't go deeper here. But what
> is obvious is that we come to a compatibility issue. If I
> transport/share my objects together with well defined meta data from one
> system to the other (let's say a Tenor enabled system to a Gnome 
> system), what happens with the meta data? Standards?
> 
> jan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



> _______________________________________________
> Appeal mailing list
> Appeal at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/appeal