Specifying access control policies for XML documents with XPath
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access control for XML documents is a non-trivial topic, as can be witnessed from the number of approaches presented in the literature. Trying to compare these, we discovered the need for a simple, clearand unambiguous language to state the declarative semantics of an access control policy. All current approaches state the semantics in natural language, which has none of the above properties. This makes it hard to assess whether the proposed algorithms are correct (i.e., really implement the described semantics). It is also hard to assess the proposed policy on its merits, and to compare it to others (for file systems for instance). This paper shows how XPath can be used to specify the semantics of an access control policy for XML documents. Using XPath has great advantages: it is standard technology, widely used and it has clear and easy syntax and semantics. We use the developed framework to give a formal specification of the five most prominent approaches of access controlfor XML documents from the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it