MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060973088 · doi:10.4018/jssoe.2011040103

Enforcing ASTD Access-Control Policies with WS-BPEL Processes in SOA Environments

2011· article· en· W2060973088 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Systems and Service-Oriented Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsXACMLBusiness Process Execution LanguageComputer scienceEnforcementXMLWeb serviceNotationSecurity policyWeb applicationDatabaseComputer securityWorld Wide WebAccess controlService-oriented architecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controlling access to the Web services of public agencies and private corporations depends primarily on specifying and deploying functional security rules to satisfy strict regulations imposed by governments, particularly in the financial and health sectors. This paper focuses on one aspect of the SELKIS and EB3SEC projects related to the security of Web-based information systems, namely, the automatic transformation of security rules into WS-BPEL (or BPEL, for short) processes. The former are instantiated from security-rule patterns written in a graphical notation, called ASTD that is close to statecharts. The latter are executed by a BPEL engine integrated into a policy decision point, which is a component of a policy enforcement manager similar to that proposed in the XACML standard.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it