基于规则和本体的应用安全策略研究
|
摘要
策略已经日益成为控制大型应用系统行为的安全方法。策略允许调整系统的行为而不必改变实现代码,通过定义高层次的规则来控制和调整低层次的系统行为,与其它方式相比具有更好的灵活性和适应性。但已有的策略方法对大规模的应用系统还存在某些困难。本文的工作主要是研究基于规则的技术和基于本体方法在应用安全策略定义和推理,主要的工作包括:(1)围绕大型应用安全系统的授权问题,总结分析了访问控制模型,综述了策略定义语言并介绍了描述逻辑和本体。(2)对基于规则的技术进行了综述和分析,并指出现有规则方法本身的局限性和应重点解决的问题。(3)介绍了描述逻辑、语义Web语言,分析了他们的关系以及OWL的在表示用户定义数据类型和谓词方面的缺陷,介绍了OWL DL的一种可判定的扩展OWL-E。(4)基于OWL-E本文定义了一个结合规则和本体的语义策略定义框架,建立了可扩展的领域实体和属性本体刻画环境知识,并使用纯OWL的方式对授权规则和约束等策略信息进行了表达和语义解释,并提出了一种细粒度的基于客体内容的授权规则表示方法。(5)基于描述逻辑提供的推理能力,为策略定义框架提出了一套比较完整的策略分析和管理方法,包括访问控制判定方法,策略间优先级判定和分析方法、多种冲突检测方法,自动的冲突消解算法。(6)比较了相关工作,总结了本文工作的特点和进一步的工作。
研究结果丰富了本体技术在应用安全领域的应用研究。本文在应用安全领域知识表示,规则知识的纯本体表示、基于语义的策略表示研究、基于规则的授权技术研究、策略的访问控制判定、冲突检测和消解等方面的研究具有一定的理论意义。本文的研究结果对于Internet环境下的访问控制,信息系统集成,电子商务和电子政务等应用安全领域具有较大的应用价值。
Policies are being increasingly used for controlling the behavior of complex and largescale application systems. The use of policies allows administrator to regulate systembehavior without changing source code. Administrator can specify high-level rules to controland regulate low-level behavior of systems. Policy-based approach is much more flexible andadaptable than other non-policy approaches. But policy-based approach is still difficult todeal with large scale application systems with large number of users and resources.
Especially recent years, with the scale-up of IT systems and the extension of scope ofusers, effective user and privilege administration is still a complex and challenging work,which is a major issue in large enterprises and organizations. For the service-providingenterprises which making their services available to their users via the Internet, the number ofusers can be in the hundreds of thousands or millions and large number of objects and arelatively high number of process can be found as well. The coherent complexity ofapplication security challenges the existed policy management approach.
A model to automatically assign user with permissions becomes a perfect solution inlarge scale system. Rule-based authorization approaches were researched and preliminarilyapplied on supporting automatically user and permission managements in past few years.Although rule-based approaches have relatively high management efficiency, the dynamicityof rule makes it often difficult to foresee the impact of a new rule or the modification of anexisting rule. It is difficult to obtain an administration overview, which make it difficult tomaintain and audit. Thereby, it is difficult to specify and maintain authorization policies inapplication system implemented based on rule-based system without other supportingmechanisms.
Semantically-rich representations for policy allow both structure and properties of theelements of a application system and the management operations themselves (e.g., policies)to be described at a high level of abstraction, thus enabling policy conflict detection and
harmonization. Moreover, modeling policies at a high level of abstraction simplifies theirdescription and improves the analyzability of the system. In fact, semantically-richrepresentations ensure that there is a common understanding between previously unknownentities, which make heterogeneous systems to be interoperated with understandable policies.Recent research effort in the area of semantic web and OWL ontology language provides apowerful base for semantically-rich policy definition. Standard OWL is suitable to describesuch domain knowledge as entities and attributes in application security domain, but it stillhas limitations in describe authorization rules of policies. The specification ofsemantically-rich context-based policies to regulate system behavior in application securityenvironments is a complex task that requires appropriate representations to describe bothcontext information relevant to policy specification and the policies themselves. Currentapproaches to semantic context-based policy specification have outlined two main researchdirections: rule-based and ontology-based approach.We research on rule-based and ontology-based approach in application security policyrepresentation and reasoning, and proposed a policy specification framework integrated ruleand ontology approach to support specification and management of policies in large scaleapplications. Under this framework, we concentrate our work on knowledge expression ofapplication security domain, rule-based semantically-rich policy specification, constraintspecification, fine-grained authorization rule specification and so on. Based on inference taskof description logic, we research on access control reasoning, decision of relationship amongauthorization rules, conflict detection methods and conflict resolution algorithms aboutpolicy specification framework.The principal contributions and research results of this dissertation are summarized inthe following:Firstly, under the background of authorization problem in large scale application security,we analyze the most of access control models and summarize the state of arts in policyspecification language. We concentrate on context-based and semantic-based policy approach,and analyze and compare these approaches in specification methods and reasoning supports.The description logic and ontology language are surveyed as well. We point out thatrule-based approach and ontology-based approach are current research directions tocontext-based policy specification.Secondly, the overview and analysis of state of arts in rule-based authorizationtechnique is given. The international research works in rule-based automaticallyauthorization are summarized, which includes BPD-ACS, RB-RBAC, provisioning-based
RBAC, Kern' Meta model, according to such aspects as concept, rule expression, rulefunction and feature. The existent problems and further emphasizing research works are pointout.Thirdly, description logic and Web ontology language are introduced. We introduce thelanguage family of description logic and concrete domain extension used to integratenumerical and other domains in a schematic way into description logics. W3C standard webontology language-OWL is introduced in details and correspondence between OWL anddescription logic is given. We also point out the limitation of OWL in datatype support. Sowe introduce the OWL-E, a decidable extension of OWL DL, to overcome the limitation ofOWL. These introductions and analyses form the theory basis of further researches.Fourthly, representation of knowledge in application security domains is investigated.An OWL-E based description frame of domain knowledge is proposed to create extensibledomain entity and attribute to abstract and define context information of application securitydomain. All domain entities are specified with common entity-attribute structure, whichmakes it easy to divide system into finer grains or extend system by using new entities andattributes so as to adapt to evolutions of context and changes of authorization requirement.The representation of quasi-order of attribute values is researched and an ontology classbased representation is proposed.Fifthly, specification and representation of policies of application security is researched.We proposed a pure OWL style Policy Definition Framework. Policy Definition Frameworkuses subclass axiom of OWL to define the syntax of all kinds of authorization rules todescribe implicit authorizations, then the semantics of authorization rules can be interpreteddirectly based on OWL semantics. Thus, authorization rules can be interpreted separatelyfrom environment and reasoning engines. A rule constrain schema is proposed to representthe comparison relations between subject attribute and object attribute to specificationfine-grained content-based access control. Representation methods about static separate ofduty and number restriction constraints are illustrated as well.Sixthly, the thesis researches on description logic based reasoning about policy of PolicyDefinition Framework. Base on description logic inference service, some import reasoningsuch as access control decision, policy scope, relationship among rules and conflict detectionare studied. The decision approaches for seniority level and overlapped relation among rulesare proposed. We proposed some conflict detection methods, which include a conflictdetection method about related policies, a conflict detection method about overlappedpolicies, a conflict detection method based on unsatisfiable intersection of policies and a
conflict detection method about separate of duty constraint. We also give an automaticconflict resolution algorithm. Our work provides an effective support and tool for policymanagement and analysis.Our work researches on integrated rule-based and ontology-based policy representationand reasoning. A combined approach is proposed to handle policy management in highdynamic, complex context and heterogenic system environment. The rule specification basedon OWL axiom semantic enhances the expressive power and common understanding onautomatic authorization rules. It can obtain rich relationships among policies and becomprehensively support by most of description reasoner.Our work enrich the research of ontology approaches applied in application securityarea, especially in the following aspect: Rule representation with pure ontology language,semantically-rich policy represent research, rule-based authorization, ontology modeling inapplication security, access control decision reasoning, conflict detection method and conflictresolution. The results of policy representation and reasoning researches can be of practicalvalue for the application security.To sum up, the study results of the thesis are of both theoretical and practical benefit tofurther researches in rule-based and ontology-based policy management.
研究结果丰富了本体技术在应用安全领域的应用研究。本文在应用安全领域知识表示,规则知识的纯本体表示、基于语义的策略表示研究、基于规则的授权技术研究、策略的访问控制判定、冲突检测和消解等方面的研究具有一定的理论意义。本文的研究结果对于Internet环境下的访问控制,信息系统集成,电子商务和电子政务等应用安全领域具有较大的应用价值。
Policies are being increasingly used for controlling the behavior of complex and largescale application systems. The use of policies allows administrator to regulate systembehavior without changing source code. Administrator can specify high-level rules to controland regulate low-level behavior of systems. Policy-based approach is much more flexible andadaptable than other non-policy approaches. But policy-based approach is still difficult todeal with large scale application systems with large number of users and resources.
Especially recent years, with the scale-up of IT systems and the extension of scope ofusers, effective user and privilege administration is still a complex and challenging work,which is a major issue in large enterprises and organizations. For the service-providingenterprises which making their services available to their users via the Internet, the number ofusers can be in the hundreds of thousands or millions and large number of objects and arelatively high number of process can be found as well. The coherent complexity ofapplication security challenges the existed policy management approach.
A model to automatically assign user with permissions becomes a perfect solution inlarge scale system. Rule-based authorization approaches were researched and preliminarilyapplied on supporting automatically user and permission managements in past few years.Although rule-based approaches have relatively high management efficiency, the dynamicityof rule makes it often difficult to foresee the impact of a new rule or the modification of anexisting rule. It is difficult to obtain an administration overview, which make it difficult tomaintain and audit. Thereby, it is difficult to specify and maintain authorization policies inapplication system implemented based on rule-based system without other supportingmechanisms.
Semantically-rich representations for policy allow both structure and properties of theelements of a application system and the management operations themselves (e.g., policies)to be described at a high level of abstraction, thus enabling policy conflict detection and
harmonization. Moreover, modeling policies at a high level of abstraction simplifies theirdescription and improves the analyzability of the system. In fact, semantically-richrepresentations ensure that there is a common understanding between previously unknownentities, which make heterogeneous systems to be interoperated with understandable policies.Recent research effort in the area of semantic web and OWL ontology language provides apowerful base for semantically-rich policy definition. Standard OWL is suitable to describesuch domain knowledge as entities and attributes in application security domain, but it stillhas limitations in describe authorization rules of policies. The specification ofsemantically-rich context-based policies to regulate system behavior in application securityenvironments is a complex task that requires appropriate representations to describe bothcontext information relevant to policy specification and the policies themselves. Currentapproaches to semantic context-based policy specification have outlined two main researchdirections: rule-based and ontology-based approach.We research on rule-based and ontology-based approach in application security policyrepresentation and reasoning, and proposed a policy specification framework integrated ruleand ontology approach to support specification and management of policies in large scaleapplications. Under this framework, we concentrate our work on knowledge expression ofapplication security domain, rule-based semantically-rich policy specification, constraintspecification, fine-grained authorization rule specification and so on. Based on inference taskof description logic, we research on access control reasoning, decision of relationship amongauthorization rules, conflict detection methods and conflict resolution algorithms aboutpolicy specification framework.The principal contributions and research results of this dissertation are summarized inthe following:Firstly, under the background of authorization problem in large scale application security,we analyze the most of access control models and summarize the state of arts in policyspecification language. We concentrate on context-based and semantic-based policy approach,and analyze and compare these approaches in specification methods and reasoning supports.The description logic and ontology language are surveyed as well. We point out thatrule-based approach and ontology-based approach are current research directions tocontext-based policy specification.Secondly, the overview and analysis of state of arts in rule-based authorizationtechnique is given. The international research works in rule-based automaticallyauthorization are summarized, which includes BPD-ACS, RB-RBAC, provisioning-based
RBAC, Kern' Meta model, according to such aspects as concept, rule expression, rulefunction and feature. The existent problems and further emphasizing research works are pointout.Thirdly, description logic and Web ontology language are introduced. We introduce thelanguage family of description logic and concrete domain extension used to integratenumerical and other domains in a schematic way into description logics. W3C standard webontology language-OWL is introduced in details and correspondence between OWL anddescription logic is given. We also point out the limitation of OWL in datatype support. Sowe introduce the OWL-E, a decidable extension of OWL DL, to overcome the limitation ofOWL. These introductions and analyses form the theory basis of further researches.Fourthly, representation of knowledge in application security domains is investigated.An OWL-E based description frame of domain knowledge is proposed to create extensibledomain entity and attribute to abstract and define context information of application securitydomain. All domain entities are specified with common entity-attribute structure, whichmakes it easy to divide system into finer grains or extend system by using new entities andattributes so as to adapt to evolutions of context and changes of authorization requirement.The representation of quasi-order of attribute values is researched and an ontology classbased representation is proposed.Fifthly, specification and representation of policies of application security is researched.We proposed a pure OWL style Policy Definition Framework. Policy Definition Frameworkuses subclass axiom of OWL to define the syntax of all kinds of authorization rules todescribe implicit authorizations, then the semantics of authorization rules can be interpreteddirectly based on OWL semantics. Thus, authorization rules can be interpreted separatelyfrom environment and reasoning engines. A rule constrain schema is proposed to representthe comparison relations between subject attribute and object attribute to specificationfine-grained content-based access control. Representation methods about static separate ofduty and number restriction constraints are illustrated as well.Sixthly, the thesis researches on description logic based reasoning about policy of PolicyDefinition Framework. Base on description logic inference service, some import reasoningsuch as access control decision, policy scope, relationship among rules and conflict detectionare studied. The decision approaches for seniority level and overlapped relation among rulesare proposed. We proposed some conflict detection methods, which include a conflictdetection method about related policies, a conflict detection method about overlappedpolicies, a conflict detection method based on unsatisfiable intersection of policies and a
conflict detection method about separate of duty constraint. We also give an automaticconflict resolution algorithm. Our work provides an effective support and tool for policymanagement and analysis.Our work researches on integrated rule-based and ontology-based policy representationand reasoning. A combined approach is proposed to handle policy management in highdynamic, complex context and heterogenic system environment. The rule specification basedon OWL axiom semantic enhances the expressive power and common understanding onautomatic authorization rules. It can obtain rich relationships among policies and becomprehensively support by most of description reasoner.Our work enrich the research of ontology approaches applied in application securityarea, especially in the following aspect: Rule representation with pure ontology language,semantically-rich policy represent research, rule-based authorization, ontology modeling inapplication security, access control decision reasoning, conflict detection method and conflictresolution. The results of policy representation and reasoning researches can be of practicalvalue for the application security.To sum up, the study results of the thesis are of both theoretical and practical benefit tofurther researches in rule-based and ontology-based policy management.
引文
1. Kern, A., et al. A meta model for authorisations in application security systems and their integration into RBAC administration. 2004. Yorktown Heights, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery, New York, United States.
2. Sandhu, R., et al. The next generation of access control models: Do we need them and what should they be? 2001. Chantilly, VA, United States: Association for Computing Machinery.
3. Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria, DOD 5200.28-STD, , U.S.D.o.D. National Computer Security Center, Editor. 1985.
4. DENNING, D.E., A lattice model of secure information flow. Commun. ACM, 1976. 19(2): p. 236–243.
5. Sandhu, R.S., Lattice-based Access Control. IEEE Computer, 1993.
6. Lampson, B.W., Dynamic Protection Structures. Proceedings of the AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference,, 1969. 35: p. 27-38.
7. Denning, D., Cryptography and Data Security. 1982: Addison-Wesley.
8. Harrison, M.H., R. W.L., and U. J.D., Protection in Operating Systems. Communication of ACM, 1976. 19(8).
9. sandhu, R., The Typed Access Matrix Model. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland,California, 1992: p. 122-136.
10. Amman, P.E. and R. Sandhu, Implementing Transaction Control Expressions by Checking for Absence of Access Rights Proc. of 8th Annual Computer Security Applications Conf., San Antonio, TX, 1992: p. 131-140.
11. Zhang, X., Y. Li, and D. Nalla, An Attribute-Based Access Matrix Model. SAC'05, Santa Fe, New Mexico,USA, 2005.
12. Ferraiolo, D. and D.R. Kuhn, Role-based access control, in Proceedings of 15th Nantional Computer Security Conference. 1992, 554-563: Baltimore, Maryland:NIST-NCSC.
13. Sandhu, R.S., et al. Role-based access control: a multi-dimensional view. 1994. Orlando, FL, USA: IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
14. Sandhu, R.S., et al., Role-based access control models. Computer, 1996. 29(2): p. 38-47.
15. Chen, F. and R.S. Sandhu. Constraints for role-based access control. 1995. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: ACM, New York, NY, USA.
16. Ferraiolo, D.F., J.A. Cugini, and D.R. Kuhn, Role-Based Access Control : Features and Motivations, in Procedings of the 11th Computer Security Applications Conference 1995, IEEE Computer Society Press: New Orleans,LA.
17. Sandhu, R. Rationale for the RBAC96 family of access control models. 1997. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: ACM, New York, NY, USA.
18. Ferraiolo, D. and J. Barkley. Specifying and managing role-based access control within a corporate Intranet. 1997. Fairfax, VA, USA: ACM, New York, NY, USA.
19. Ravi, S., Role activation hierarchies, in Proceedings of the third ACM workshop on Role-based access control. 1998, ACM Press: Fairfax, Virginia, United States.
20. Sandhu, R. and Q. Munawer, How to do discretionary access control using roles. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, 1998: p. 47-54.
21. Ferraiolo, D.F., J.F. Barkley, and D.R. Kuhn, A role-based access control model and reference implementation within a corporate intranet. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 1999. 2(1): p. 34-64.
22. Park, J.S. and R. Sandhu, RBAC on the Web by smart certificates. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, 1999: p. 1-9.
23. Gail-Joon, A. and S. Ravi, Role-based authorization constraints specification. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 2000. 3(4): p. 207-226.
24. Sandhu, R., et al. ARBAC97 model for role-based administration of roles: Preliminary description and outline. 1997. Fairfax, VA, USA: ACM, New York, NY, USA.
25. Andreas, S., M. Jonathan, and J. Jeremy, The role-based access control system of a European bank: a case study and discussion, in Proceedings of the sixth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies. 2001, ACM Press: Chantilly, Virginia, United States.
26. Sandhu, R., Engineering authority and trust in cyberspace: The OM-AM and RBAC way. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, 2000: p. 111-119.
27. John, B., B. Konstantin, and U. Jinny, Supporting relationships in access control using role based access control, in Proceedings of the fourth ACM workshop on Role-based access control. 1999, ACM Press: Fairfax, Virginia, United States.
28. PARK, J.S., R. SANDHU, and G.-J. AHN, Role-Based Access Control on the Web. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 2001. 4(4): p. 37-71.
29. Saunders, G., M. Hitchens, and V. Varadharajan, Role-Based Access Control and the Access Control Matrix. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2003. 145-157.
30. Sandhu, R., V. Bhamidipati, and Q. Munawer, The ARBAC97 model for role-based administration of roles. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 1999. 2(1): p. 105-135.
31. Sandhu, R., D. Ferraiolo, and R. Kuhn, NIST model for role-based access control: Towards a unified standard. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, 2000: p. 47-63.
32. Ferraiolo, D.F., et al., Proposed NIST Standard for Role-Based Access Control:Towards a unified standard. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security(TISSEC), 2001. 4(3): p. 224-274.
33. Sylvia, O., S. Ravi, and M. Qamar, Configuring role-based access control to enforce mandatory and discretionary access control policies. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 2000. 3(2): p. 85-106.
34. Nyanchama, M. and S.L. Osborn, Modeling Mandatory Access Control in Role-Based Security Systems Database Security IX: Status and Prospects, Spooner, Demurjian and Dobson, eds. Chapman & Hall, Aug. 1995, 129-144. 1995.
35. Oh, S. and R. Sandhu. A model for role administration using organization structure. 2002. Monterey, CA, United States: Association for Computing Machinery.
36. 钟华, 冯玉琳, and 姜洪安, 扩充角色层次关系模型及其应用. 软件学报, 2000. 11(6): p. 779-784.
37. Thomas, R.K., Team-based Access Control (TMAC): A Primitive for Applying Role-based Access Controls in Collaborative Environments. Proceedings of t he Second ACM Workshop on Role -based Access Control . New York , N Y, USA :ACM Press, 1997: p. 13-19.
38. Wang, W., Team-and-role-based organizational context and access control for cooperative hypermedia environments. ACM Hypertext'99, 1999.
39. Giuri, L. and P. Iglio, Role templates for content-based access control, in Proceedings of the second ACM workshop on Role-based access control. 1997, ACM Press: Fairfax, Virginia, United States.
40. Tzelepi, S.K., D.K. Koukopoulos, and G. Pangalos, A flexible content and context-based access control model for multimedia medical image database systems ACM Multimedia 2001 Workshops-Multimedia and Security: New Challenges, Ottawa, Ont , Canada, 2001: p. 52-55.
41. Cohen, E., et al., Models for Coalition-based Access Control (CBAC). SACMAT'02, Monterey, California, USA., 2002: p. 97-106.
42. 黄建, 卿斯汉, and 温红子, 带时间特性的角色访问控制. 软件学报, 2003. 14(11): p. 1944-1954.
43. Park, J.S. and R. Sandhu, Secure cookies on the web. IEEE Internet Computing, 2000. 4(4): p. 36-44.
44. Thomas, H., J, and B. rg, Managing trust between collaborating companies using outsourced role based access control, in Proceedings of the fourth ACM workshop on Role-based access control. 1999, ACM Press: Fairfax, Virginia, United States.
45. Herzberg, A., et al., Access Control Meets Public Key Infrastructure, Or: Assigning Roles to Strangers. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, 2000.
46. Kern, A., Advanced Features for Enterprise-Wide Role-Based Access Control. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2002: p. 333-342.
47. Kern, A., et al. Observations on the role life-cycle in the context of enterprise security management. 2002. Monterey, CA, United States: Association for Computing Machinery.
48. Kern, A., A. Schaad, and J. Moffett. An administration concept for the enterprise role-based access control model. 2003. Villa Gallia, Como, Italy: Association for Computing Machinery.
49. Barka, E. and R. Sandhu, Framework for Role -Based Delegation Models, in Proc. 16th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 2000: New Orleans.
50. Barka, E. and R. Sandhu, Role-Based Delegation Model/Hierarchical Roles (RBDM1). 2004, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1314, United States: Tucson, AZ, United States. p. 396-404.
51. Longhua, Z., A. Gail-Joon, and C. Bei-Tseng, A rule-based framework for role-based delegation and revocation. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 2003. 6(3): p. 404-441.
52. Lee, H., Y. Lee, and B. Noh, A New Role-Based Delegation Model Using Sub-role Hierarchies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2003. 811-818.
53. Park, D.-G. and Y.-R. Lee, A Flexible Role-Based Delegation Model Using Characteristics of Permissions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2005. 310-323.
54. 徐震, 李斓, and 冯登国, 基于角色的受限委托模型. 软件学报, 2005. 16(5): p. 970-978.
55. Jaeger, T., On the Increasing Importance of Constraints. Proc. 4th ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control 1999: p. 33-42.
56. Indrakshi, R., et al., Using uml to visualize role-based access control constraints, in Proceedings of the ninth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies. 2004, ACM Press: Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
57. STREMBECK, M. and G. NEUMANN, An Integrated Approach to Engineer and Enforce Context Constraints in RBAC Environments. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 2004. 7(3): p. 392-427.
58. Bertino, E., P.A. Bonatti, and E. Ferrari, TRBAC: A temporal role-based access control model. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 2001. 4(3): p. 191-223.
59. 董光宇, 卿斯汉, and 刘克龙, 带时间特性的角色授权约束. 软件学报, 2002. 13(8): p. 1521-1527.
60. Thomas, R.K. and R.S. Sandhu, Towards a task-based paradigm for exible and adaptable access control in distributed applications. Proc. of 1992-1993 ACM SIGSAC New Security ParadigmsWorkshops,Little Compton, RI, 1993: p. 138-142.
61. Thomas, R.K. and R.S. Sandhu, Conceptual Foundations for a Model of Task-based Authorizations. Proceedings of the 7th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop,Franconia, NH, 1994: p. 66-79.
62. Thomas, R.K. and R.S. Sandhu, Task-Based Authorization Controls (TBAC): A Family of Models for Active and Enterprise-Oriented Authorization Management. Proceedings of the IFIP WG11.3 Workshop on Database Security, Lake Tahoe, California, 1997: p. 166-181.
63. Oh, S. and S. Park, Task-role-based Access Control Model. Information System, 2003. 28(533-562.).
64. Kudo, M. and S. Hada, XML document security based on provisional authorization. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Athens, Greece. 2000: p. 87–96.
65. Jajodia, S., M. Kudo, and V. Subrahmanian, Provisional authorizations,E-Commerce Security and Privacy, Gosh A (ed) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. 2001: p. 133–159.
66. Kudo, M. and H. S, Access control model with provisional actions. IEICE Trans Fundam Electron Comm Comput Sci E84. 2001: p. 295–302.
67. Kudo, M., PBAC: Provision-based access control model. International Journal of Information Security, 2002. 1(2): p. 116-130.
68. Essmayr, W., G. Pernul\, and A.M. Tjoa, Access controls by object-oriented concepts. Proceedings of 11 IFIP WG 11.3 Working Conference on Database Security, 1997.
69. 杨洋, 丁仁杰, and 闵勇, 基于受控对象的访问控制模型. 电力系统自动化, 2003. 27(7): p. 36-40.
70. 李长城, et al., 基于受控对象的多主体访问控制模型. 计算机集成制造系系统, 2005. 11(3): p. 342-346.
71. Blaze, M., et al., The Role of Trust Management in Distributed Systems. Secure Internet Programming,Lecture Note of Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, 1999. 1603: p. 185-210.
72. Erickson, J.S., Fair use, DRM, and Trusted Computing. . Communications of the ACM, 2003. 46(4): p. 34–39.
73. Park, J. and R. Sandhu, Towards Usage Control Models:Beyond Traditional Access Control. SACMAT' 02, Monterey, California, USA., 2002.
74. Park, J. and R. Sandhu, The UCONABC usage control model. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 2004. 7(1): p. 128-174.
75. Sandhu, R. and J. Park., Usage Control: A Vision for Next Generation Access Control. MMM-ACNS 2003,LNCS 2776, 2003: p. 17-31.
76. Al-Kahtani, M.A. and R. Sandhu. A Model for Attribute-Based User-Role Assignment. in Procedings of the 18th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 2002. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
77. Al-Kahtani, M.A. and R. Sandhu. Induced role hierarchies with attribute-based RBAC. 2003. Villa Gallia, Como, Italy: Association for Computing Machinery.
78. Al-Kahtani, M.A. and R. Sandhu. Rule-Based RBAC with negative authorization. 2004. Tucson, AZ, United States: IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1314, United States.
79. Kern, A. and C. Walhorn. Rule support for role-based access control. 2005. Stockholm, Sweden: Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY 10036-5701, US.
80. Chandramouli, R., Business Process Driven Framework for defining an Access Control Service based on Roles and Rules. 23rd National Information Systems Security Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 2003.
81. Lobo, J., R. Bhatia, and S. Naqvi, A Policy Description Language. . In Proc. of National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence,Orlando, FL, USA, 1999.
82. Bertino, E., et al., A System to Specify and Manage Multipolicy Access Control Models. . Proc. POLICY 2002, IEEE Computer Society 2002: p. 116–127.
83. Jajodia, S., P. Samarati, and V.S. Subrahmanian, A Logical Language for Expressing Authorizations. Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 1997: p. 31-42.
84. Bertino, E., et al., A Logical Framework for Reasoning about Access Control Models, in SACMAT'01. 2001: Chantilly,Virginia,USA.
85. Crescini, V.F. and Y. Zhang, A Logic Based Approach for Dynamic Access Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2004. 623-635.
86. Jajodia, S., et al., A Unified Framework for Enforcing Multiple Access Control Policies. Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1997: p. 474-485.
87. Neuman, T.R.a.C., Representation and Evaluation of Security Policies for Distributed System Services. Proceedings of the 2000 DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 2000.
88. Barker, S., Distributed Access Control: A Logic-Based Approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2003. 217-228.
89. Kim, D.-K., et al., Modeling Role-Based Access Control Using Parameterized UML Models. FASE 2004, LNCS 2984, 2004: p. 180–193.
90. Park, S. and G. Kwon, Verification of UML-Based Security Policy Model. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2005. 973-982.
91. Koch, M., L.V. Mancini, and F. Parisi-Presicce, Administrative scope in the graph-based framework, in Proceedings of the ninth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies. 2004, ACM Press: Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
92. Manuel, K., V.M. Luigi, and P.-P. Francesco, A graph-based formalism for RBAC. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 2002. 5(3): p. 332-365.
93. Koch, M., L.V. Mancini, and F. Parisi-Presicce, Decidability of Safety in Graph-Based Models for Access Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2002. 229-243.
94. Warner, J., V. Atluri, and R. Mukkamala, An Attribute Graph Based Approach to Map Local Access Control Policies to Credential Based Access Control Policies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2005. 134-147.
95. Hitchens, M. and V. Varadharajan, Tower: A Language for Role Based Access Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2001. 88.
96. Ribeiro, C., A. Zuquete, and P. Ferreira, SPL: An Access Control Language for Security Policies with Complex Constraints. Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, 2001.
97. OASIS, eXtensible Access Control Markup Language, Version 2.0. OASIS Standard, http://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/2.0/access_control-xacml-2.0-core-spec-os.pdf, 2005.
98. Kagal, L., T. Finin, and A. Joshi, A Policy Language for a Pervasive Computing Environment. Proceedings of IEEE Fourth International Workshop on Policy (Policy 2003). Lake Como, Italy, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2003(June): p. 63-76.
99. Damianou, N., et al., The Ponder Policy Specification Language. Proc. Policy 2001: Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, Bristol, UK, Springer-Verlag LNCS 1995, 2001: p. 18-39.
100. Bettini, C., et al., Provisions and Obligations in Policy Management and Security Applications, in Proceedings of the 28th VLDB Conference. 2002: Hong Kong, China.
101. Kagal, L., T. Finin, and A. Joshi, A Policy Based Approach to Security for the Semantic Web. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2003. 402-418.
102. Anutariya, C., et al., A Rule-Based XML Access Control Model. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2003. 35-48.
103. Ortalo, R., A Flexible Method for Information System Security Policy Specification. Proceedings of 5th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS98), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, Springer-Verlag., 1998.
104. Sloman, M., Policy driven management for distributed systems. Journal of Network and Systems Management,, 1994. 2: p. 333.
105. Woo, T.Y.C. and S.S. Lam., Authorizations in distributed systems: A new approach. Journal of Computer Security, 1993. 2(2-3): p. 107–136.
106. Hoagland, J.A., R. Pandey, and K.N. Levitt. , Security Policy Specificaton Using a Graphical Approach. Technical report CSE-98-3, UC Davis Computer Science Department, July 22, 1998.
107. Minsky, N.H. and V. Ungureanu, Unified support for heterogeneous security policies in distributed systems. In Proceedings of the 7th USENIX Security Symposium(SECURITY-98), Berkeley. Usenix Association., Jan. 26–29,1998: p. 131–142.
108. Bevier, W.R. and W.D. Young., A constraint language for adage. Technical report, Computational Logic, Inc., Apr.1997.
109. OASIS, eXtensible Access Control Markup Language, Version 1.0. OASIS Standard,http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/2406/oasis-xacml-1.0.pdf, 2003.
110. Damianou, N., N. Dulay, E. Lupu, and M. Sloman. , Ponder: A Language for Specifying Security and Management Policies for Distributed Systems.The Language Specification -Version 2.2. , in Research Report DoC 2000/1, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, Department of Computing, London. 3 April, 2000.
111. Kagal, L., Rei: A Policy Language for the Me-Centric Project HP Labs Technical Report, HPL-2002-270, 2002.
112. Uszok, A., et al., KAoS policy and domain services: Toward a description-logic approach to policy representation, deconfliction, and enforcement. Proc. of IEEE 4th International Workshop on Policy, Lake Como, Italy,, June 2003: p. 93-98.
113. OASIS, Profiles for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0. http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-profiles-2.0-os.pdf, 15 March 2005.
114. Bandara, A.K., E.C. Lupu, and A. Russo, Using Event Calculus to Formalise Policy Specification and Analysis. 4th IEEE Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (Policy 2003), Lake Como, Italy, , June 2003.
115. Burkhardt, J., Horst Henn, and S. Hepper, Pervasive Computing: Technology and Architecture of Mobile Internet Applications. USA:Addison Wesley Professional, Nov. 2001.
116. Bradshaw, J.M., et al., KAoS: Toward an industrial-strength generic agent architecture. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software Agents. Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press., 1997: p. 375-418.
117. Johnson, M., et al., KAoS semantic policy and domain services: An application of DAML to Web-Services-based grid architectures. Proceedings of the AAMAS 03 Workshop on Web Services and Agent-Based Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, July 2003.
118. Tonti, G., et al., Semantic web languages for policy representation and reasoning: A comparison of KAoS, Rei and Ponder. Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, Oct. 2003.
119. Fikes, R., J. Jenkins, and G. Frank, JTP: A System Architecture and Component Library for Hybrid Reasoning. Proceedings of the Seventh World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics. Orlando, Florida, USA. , July, 2003.
120. Toninelli, A., et al., Rule-based and Ontology-based Policies: Toward a Hybrid Approach to Control Agents in Pervasive Environments. The Semantic Web and Policy Workshop – ISWC 2005 , Galway, November 7, 2005.
121. Quillian, M.R., Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic capabilities. Behavioral Science, 1967. 12: p. 410–430.
122. Minsky, M., A framework for representing knowledge. In P.Winston,Ed. The Psychology of Computer Vision, New York:McGraw-Hill, 1975: p. 211-277.
123. Minsky, M., A framework for representing knowledge. In J. Haugeland,editor, Mind Design. The MIT Press. 1981.
124. Lehmann, F., Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence. Pergamon Press, Oxford UK. 1992.
125. Hayes., P.J., The logic of frames. In D. Metzing, editor, Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding, Walter de Gruyter and Co. 1979: p. 46–61. .
126. Brachman, R.J. and H.J. Levesque, Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos. 1985.
127. Baader, F., et al., The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. 2003: Cambridge University Press.
128. Schmidt-Schau?, M. and G. Smolka., Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence, 1991. 48(1): p. 1-26.
129. Horrocks, I. and U. Sattler, Ontology reasoning in the SHOQ(D) description logic. Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), 2001: p. 199–204.
130. Berners-Lee, T.i., W eaving the W eb. Harpur, San Francisco. 1999.
131. Gruber, T., A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 1993. 5: p. 199-220.
132. Gruber, T.R., Ontolingua: a translation app roach to portable ontology specifications. KnowledgeA cquisition, 1993. 5(2): p. 199-220.
133. MacGregor, Inside the LOOM classifier S IGART Bulletim, 1991. 2(3): p. 70-76.
134. Borgida, P.-S., A semantic and comp lete algorithm for subsump tion in the CLA SS descrip tion logics. Journal of A rtificial Intelligent Research, 1994. 1: p. 211-308.
135. W3C, Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/, 27 March 2000.
136. Karp, P.D., V.K. Chaudhri, and J. Thomere, XOL: An XML-based ontology exchange language. Version 0.3. http://www.ai.sri.com/pkarp/xol/xol.html, 1999.
137. I. Horrocks, D.F., J. Boekstra, S. Decker, M. Erdmann, C. Goble, F. Van Harmelen, M. Klein, S. Staab, R. Studer, and E. Motta, The Ontology Inference Layer OIL. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dieter/oil/Tr/oil.pdf, 2000.
138. McGuinness, D.L., et al., Daml-ont: An ontology language for the semantic web. In D. Fensel, J. Hendler, H. Lieberman & W. Wahlster, eds, `Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to its Full Potential', MIT Press, 2003.
139. Horrocks, I., DAML+OIL: A description logic for the semantic web. Bull of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering, 2002. 25(1): p. 4-9.
140. Bechhofer, F.H., J. Hendler OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/. Feb.10 2004.
141. Horrocks, I. and P.F. Patel-Schneider., Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. Fensel D, Sycara D, Mylopoulos D, ed. Proc of the 2003 International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2003), Berlin: Springer, 2003: p. 17-29.
142. Baader, F., I. Horrocks, and U.D. Sattler, escription logics as ontology languages for the semantic Web. Hutter D, Stephan W, eds. Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning: Essays in Honor of J?rg Siekmann on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. LNAI 2605, Springer-Verlag, 2005: p. 228-248.
143. Didriksen, T., Rule Based Database Access Control -A Practical Approach. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on Role Based Access Control, Fairfax,Va,USA, 1997: p. 143-151.
144. Gebe, G., Managed Authorization Services: Implementing Roles, Rules, and Policies. 2004, Burton Group: Midvale,Utah, USA.
145. Sandhu, R. and J.S. Park, Decentralized user-role assignment for Web-based Intranets. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, 1998: p. 1-12.
146. Bertino, E., P. Samarati, and S. Jajodia, An Extended Authorization Model for Relational Databases. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1997. 9(1): p. 85-101.
147. Koch, M., L.V. Mancini, and F. Parisi-Presicce, Conflict Detection and Resolution in Access Control Policy Specifications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2002. 223.
148. JAJODIA, S., et al., Flexible Support for Multiple Access Control Policies. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 2001. 26(2): p. 214-260.
149. Brachman, R.J., What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1977. 9(2): p. 127-152
150. Brachman, R.J. and J.G. Schmolze., An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, . 9, 1985. 2: p. 171–216.
151. Edelmann, J. and B. Owsnicki, Data models in knowledge representation systems: A case study. C. R. Rollinger and W. Horn, editors, GWAI-86 and 2. ¨ Osterreichische Artificial-Intelligence-Tagung, volume 124 of Informatik-Fachberichte, Springer, 1986: p. 69–74.
152. Mays, E., R. Dionne, and R. Weida, K-Rep system overview. SIGART Bull., 1991. 2(3): p. 93–97.
153. Brachman, R.J., et al., Living with CLASSIC: When and how to use a KL-ONE-like language. John F. Sowa, editor, Principles of Semantic Networks, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1991: p. 401–456.
154. Baader, F. and P. Hanschke, A schema for integrating concrete domains into concept languages. Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'91), 1991: p. 452–457.
155. Carsten, L., Reasoning with Concrete Domains, in Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1999, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
156. Horrocks, I. and U. Sattle, A Description Logic with Transitive and Converse Roles and Role Hierachies. LTCS-Report 98-05, LuFg Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH Aachen,Germany, 1998.
157. Horrocks, I. and U. Sattle, Optimised Reasoning for SHIQ. Proc. of the 15th Eur. conf. on Artificial Intelligence(ECAI 2002), 2002: p. 277-281.
158. Schild, K., A correspondence theory for terminological logics:Preliminary report. Proceedings of 12th international Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence(IJCAI'91), 1991: p. 466-471.
159. Nebel, B., Terminological Reasoning is Inherently Intractable. Artificial Intelligence, 1990. 43: p. 235-249.
160. Baader, F., et al., An Empirical Analysis of Optimization Techniques for Terminological Representation Systems or: Making KRIS get a move on. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning(KR'92), 1992: p. 270-281.
161. Haarslev, V. and R. Moller, RACER System Description Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning,Siena, Italy, 2001: p. 701 -706
162. Horrocks, I., Using an Expressive Description Logic:FaCT or Fiction? Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning(KR'98), 1998: p. 636-647.
163. Patel-Shneider, P.F., DLP. Description Logics, 1999.
164. Buchheit, M., F.M. Donini, and A. Schaerf, Decidable Reasoning in Terminological Knowledge Representation System. Journal of A rtificial Intelligent Research, 1993. 1: p. 109-138.
165. DCMI, Dublin Core Metadata Element Set,Version 1.1:Reference Description. DCMI Recommendation,URL http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/, June 2003.
166. 胡鹤, 刘大有, and 王生生, Web 本体语言的分析与比较. 计算机工程, 2005. 31(4).
167. Patel-Schneider, P.F., P. Hayes, and I. Horrocks, OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax W3C Recommendation ,URL http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/, 10 February 2004
168. Horrocks, I., P.F. Patel-Schneider, and F.v. Harmelen, Reviewing the Design of DAML+OIL:An Ontology Language for the Semantic Web. Proc. of the 18th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence(AAAI 2002),AAAI Press, 2002: p. 792-797.
169. Brachman, R., V. Gilbert, and H. Levesque, An Essential Hybrid Reasoning System: Knowledge and Symbol Level Accounts of KRYPTON. IJCAI-85, 1985: p. 532-539.
170. Myers, K., Hybrid Reasoning Using Universal Attachment. AI 67, 1994: p. 329-375.
171. Pan, J.Z., Reasoning Support for OWL-E(Extended Abstratc). Proc.of Doctoral Programme in the 2004 International Joint Conference of Automated Reasoning(IJCAR2004), July 2004.
172. Pan, J.Z., Description Logics:Reasoning Support For the Semantic Web. A Thesis Submitted to the University of Manchester For the degree of PH.D, 2004.
173. Bechhofer, S., The DIG Description Logic Interface:DIG/1.1. URL Http:\dl-web.man.ac.uk\dig\2003\02\interface.pdf, Feb 2003.
174. DIG, SourceForge DIG Interface Project. URL Http:\\sourceforge.net\projects\dig, 2004.
175. Tsarkov, D. and I. Horrocks, Efficient Reasoning with Range and Domain Constraints. Proc. of the 2004 Description Logic Workshop(Dl 2004), 2004: p. 41-50.
176. Haarslev, V. and R. Moller, RACER System Description. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR'2001). Siena, Italy: Srpinger-Verlag, , 2001: p. 701-706.
177. Pellet, http:\\www.mindswap.org\2003\pellet\. 2003.
178. El Kalam, A.A., R. El Baida, and P. Balbiani, Organization based access control. Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, Como, Italy, 2003: p. 120-131.
179. Schmidt-Schauss, M., Subsumption in KL-ONE is undecidable. Proc. of the First International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1989), Morgan Kaufmann: Los Altos, 1989.
180. Zhao, C., et al., Representation and Reasoning on RBAC: A Description Logic Approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2005. 381-393.
181. Moffett, J.D. and M.S. Sloman, Policy Conflict Analysis in Distributed System Management. Ablex Publishing Journal of Organisational Computing, 1994. 4(1): p. 1-22.
182. Lupu, E. and M. Sloman., Conflict Analysis for Management Policies. Fifth IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management IM'97, San-Diego, 1997.
183. Benferhat, S., R.E. Baida, and F. Cuppens., A Stratification-based Approach for Handling Conflicts in Access Control. SACMAT '03: Proceedings of the eighth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies, Como, Italy, ACM Press, 2003: p. 189–195.
184. Schmidt-SchauB, M., Subsumption in KL-ONE is undecidable. . Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89). Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1989: p. pages 421-431.
185. Baader, F., Restricted role-value-maps in a description logic with existential restrictions and terminological cycles. Proceedings of the 2003 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2003), Rome, Italy, 2003.
2. Sandhu, R., et al. The next generation of access control models: Do we need them and what should they be? 2001. Chantilly, VA, United States: Association for Computing Machinery.
3. Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria, DOD 5200.28-STD, , U.S.D.o.D. National Computer Security Center, Editor. 1985.
4. DENNING, D.E., A lattice model of secure information flow. Commun. ACM, 1976. 19(2): p. 236–243.
5. Sandhu, R.S., Lattice-based Access Control. IEEE Computer, 1993.
6. Lampson, B.W., Dynamic Protection Structures. Proceedings of the AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference,, 1969. 35: p. 27-38.
7. Denning, D., Cryptography and Data Security. 1982: Addison-Wesley.
8. Harrison, M.H., R. W.L., and U. J.D., Protection in Operating Systems. Communication of ACM, 1976. 19(8).
9. sandhu, R., The Typed Access Matrix Model. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland,California, 1992: p. 122-136.
10. Amman, P.E. and R. Sandhu, Implementing Transaction Control Expressions by Checking for Absence of Access Rights Proc. of 8th Annual Computer Security Applications Conf., San Antonio, TX, 1992: p. 131-140.
11. Zhang, X., Y. Li, and D. Nalla, An Attribute-Based Access Matrix Model. SAC'05, Santa Fe, New Mexico,USA, 2005.
12. Ferraiolo, D. and D.R. Kuhn, Role-based access control, in Proceedings of 15th Nantional Computer Security Conference. 1992, 554-563: Baltimore, Maryland:NIST-NCSC.
13. Sandhu, R.S., et al. Role-based access control: a multi-dimensional view. 1994. Orlando, FL, USA: IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
14. Sandhu, R.S., et al., Role-based access control models. Computer, 1996. 29(2): p. 38-47.
15. Chen, F. and R.S. Sandhu. Constraints for role-based access control. 1995. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: ACM, New York, NY, USA.
16. Ferraiolo, D.F., J.A. Cugini, and D.R. Kuhn, Role-Based Access Control : Features and Motivations, in Procedings of the 11th Computer Security Applications Conference 1995, IEEE Computer Society Press: New Orleans,LA.
17. Sandhu, R. Rationale for the RBAC96 family of access control models. 1997. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: ACM, New York, NY, USA.
18. Ferraiolo, D. and J. Barkley. Specifying and managing role-based access control within a corporate Intranet. 1997. Fairfax, VA, USA: ACM, New York, NY, USA.
19. Ravi, S., Role activation hierarchies, in Proceedings of the third ACM workshop on Role-based access control. 1998, ACM Press: Fairfax, Virginia, United States.
20. Sandhu, R. and Q. Munawer, How to do discretionary access control using roles. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, 1998: p. 47-54.
21. Ferraiolo, D.F., J.F. Barkley, and D.R. Kuhn, A role-based access control model and reference implementation within a corporate intranet. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 1999. 2(1): p. 34-64.
22. Park, J.S. and R. Sandhu, RBAC on the Web by smart certificates. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, 1999: p. 1-9.
23. Gail-Joon, A. and S. Ravi, Role-based authorization constraints specification. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 2000. 3(4): p. 207-226.
24. Sandhu, R., et al. ARBAC97 model for role-based administration of roles: Preliminary description and outline. 1997. Fairfax, VA, USA: ACM, New York, NY, USA.
25. Andreas, S., M. Jonathan, and J. Jeremy, The role-based access control system of a European bank: a case study and discussion, in Proceedings of the sixth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies. 2001, ACM Press: Chantilly, Virginia, United States.
26. Sandhu, R., Engineering authority and trust in cyberspace: The OM-AM and RBAC way. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, 2000: p. 111-119.
27. John, B., B. Konstantin, and U. Jinny, Supporting relationships in access control using role based access control, in Proceedings of the fourth ACM workshop on Role-based access control. 1999, ACM Press: Fairfax, Virginia, United States.
28. PARK, J.S., R. SANDHU, and G.-J. AHN, Role-Based Access Control on the Web. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 2001. 4(4): p. 37-71.
29. Saunders, G., M. Hitchens, and V. Varadharajan, Role-Based Access Control and the Access Control Matrix. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2003. 145-157.
30. Sandhu, R., V. Bhamidipati, and Q. Munawer, The ARBAC97 model for role-based administration of roles. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 1999. 2(1): p. 105-135.
31. Sandhu, R., D. Ferraiolo, and R. Kuhn, NIST model for role-based access control: Towards a unified standard. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, 2000: p. 47-63.
32. Ferraiolo, D.F., et al., Proposed NIST Standard for Role-Based Access Control:Towards a unified standard. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security(TISSEC), 2001. 4(3): p. 224-274.
33. Sylvia, O., S. Ravi, and M. Qamar, Configuring role-based access control to enforce mandatory and discretionary access control policies. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 2000. 3(2): p. 85-106.
34. Nyanchama, M. and S.L. Osborn, Modeling Mandatory Access Control in Role-Based Security Systems Database Security IX: Status and Prospects, Spooner, Demurjian and Dobson, eds. Chapman & Hall, Aug. 1995, 129-144. 1995.
35. Oh, S. and R. Sandhu. A model for role administration using organization structure. 2002. Monterey, CA, United States: Association for Computing Machinery.
36. 钟华, 冯玉琳, and 姜洪安, 扩充角色层次关系模型及其应用. 软件学报, 2000. 11(6): p. 779-784.
37. Thomas, R.K., Team-based Access Control (TMAC): A Primitive for Applying Role-based Access Controls in Collaborative Environments. Proceedings of t he Second ACM Workshop on Role -based Access Control . New York , N Y, USA :ACM Press, 1997: p. 13-19.
38. Wang, W., Team-and-role-based organizational context and access control for cooperative hypermedia environments. ACM Hypertext'99, 1999.
39. Giuri, L. and P. Iglio, Role templates for content-based access control, in Proceedings of the second ACM workshop on Role-based access control. 1997, ACM Press: Fairfax, Virginia, United States.
40. Tzelepi, S.K., D.K. Koukopoulos, and G. Pangalos, A flexible content and context-based access control model for multimedia medical image database systems ACM Multimedia 2001 Workshops-Multimedia and Security: New Challenges, Ottawa, Ont , Canada, 2001: p. 52-55.
41. Cohen, E., et al., Models for Coalition-based Access Control (CBAC). SACMAT'02, Monterey, California, USA., 2002: p. 97-106.
42. 黄建, 卿斯汉, and 温红子, 带时间特性的角色访问控制. 软件学报, 2003. 14(11): p. 1944-1954.
43. Park, J.S. and R. Sandhu, Secure cookies on the web. IEEE Internet Computing, 2000. 4(4): p. 36-44.
44. Thomas, H., J, and B. rg, Managing trust between collaborating companies using outsourced role based access control, in Proceedings of the fourth ACM workshop on Role-based access control. 1999, ACM Press: Fairfax, Virginia, United States.
45. Herzberg, A., et al., Access Control Meets Public Key Infrastructure, Or: Assigning Roles to Strangers. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, 2000.
46. Kern, A., Advanced Features for Enterprise-Wide Role-Based Access Control. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2002: p. 333-342.
47. Kern, A., et al. Observations on the role life-cycle in the context of enterprise security management. 2002. Monterey, CA, United States: Association for Computing Machinery.
48. Kern, A., A. Schaad, and J. Moffett. An administration concept for the enterprise role-based access control model. 2003. Villa Gallia, Como, Italy: Association for Computing Machinery.
49. Barka, E. and R. Sandhu, Framework for Role -Based Delegation Models, in Proc. 16th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 2000: New Orleans.
50. Barka, E. and R. Sandhu, Role-Based Delegation Model/Hierarchical Roles (RBDM1). 2004, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1314, United States: Tucson, AZ, United States. p. 396-404.
51. Longhua, Z., A. Gail-Joon, and C. Bei-Tseng, A rule-based framework for role-based delegation and revocation. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 2003. 6(3): p. 404-441.
52. Lee, H., Y. Lee, and B. Noh, A New Role-Based Delegation Model Using Sub-role Hierarchies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2003. 811-818.
53. Park, D.-G. and Y.-R. Lee, A Flexible Role-Based Delegation Model Using Characteristics of Permissions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2005. 310-323.
54. 徐震, 李斓, and 冯登国, 基于角色的受限委托模型. 软件学报, 2005. 16(5): p. 970-978.
55. Jaeger, T., On the Increasing Importance of Constraints. Proc. 4th ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control 1999: p. 33-42.
56. Indrakshi, R., et al., Using uml to visualize role-based access control constraints, in Proceedings of the ninth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies. 2004, ACM Press: Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
57. STREMBECK, M. and G. NEUMANN, An Integrated Approach to Engineer and Enforce Context Constraints in RBAC Environments. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 2004. 7(3): p. 392-427.
58. Bertino, E., P.A. Bonatti, and E. Ferrari, TRBAC: A temporal role-based access control model. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 2001. 4(3): p. 191-223.
59. 董光宇, 卿斯汉, and 刘克龙, 带时间特性的角色授权约束. 软件学报, 2002. 13(8): p. 1521-1527.
60. Thomas, R.K. and R.S. Sandhu, Towards a task-based paradigm for exible and adaptable access control in distributed applications. Proc. of 1992-1993 ACM SIGSAC New Security ParadigmsWorkshops,Little Compton, RI, 1993: p. 138-142.
61. Thomas, R.K. and R.S. Sandhu, Conceptual Foundations for a Model of Task-based Authorizations. Proceedings of the 7th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop,Franconia, NH, 1994: p. 66-79.
62. Thomas, R.K. and R.S. Sandhu, Task-Based Authorization Controls (TBAC): A Family of Models for Active and Enterprise-Oriented Authorization Management. Proceedings of the IFIP WG11.3 Workshop on Database Security, Lake Tahoe, California, 1997: p. 166-181.
63. Oh, S. and S. Park, Task-role-based Access Control Model. Information System, 2003. 28(533-562.).
64. Kudo, M. and S. Hada, XML document security based on provisional authorization. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Athens, Greece. 2000: p. 87–96.
65. Jajodia, S., M. Kudo, and V. Subrahmanian, Provisional authorizations,E-Commerce Security and Privacy, Gosh A (ed) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. 2001: p. 133–159.
66. Kudo, M. and H. S, Access control model with provisional actions. IEICE Trans Fundam Electron Comm Comput Sci E84. 2001: p. 295–302.
67. Kudo, M., PBAC: Provision-based access control model. International Journal of Information Security, 2002. 1(2): p. 116-130.
68. Essmayr, W., G. Pernul\, and A.M. Tjoa, Access controls by object-oriented concepts. Proceedings of 11 IFIP WG 11.3 Working Conference on Database Security, 1997.
69. 杨洋, 丁仁杰, and 闵勇, 基于受控对象的访问控制模型. 电力系统自动化, 2003. 27(7): p. 36-40.
70. 李长城, et al., 基于受控对象的多主体访问控制模型. 计算机集成制造系系统, 2005. 11(3): p. 342-346.
71. Blaze, M., et al., The Role of Trust Management in Distributed Systems. Secure Internet Programming,Lecture Note of Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, 1999. 1603: p. 185-210.
72. Erickson, J.S., Fair use, DRM, and Trusted Computing. . Communications of the ACM, 2003. 46(4): p. 34–39.
73. Park, J. and R. Sandhu, Towards Usage Control Models:Beyond Traditional Access Control. SACMAT' 02, Monterey, California, USA., 2002.
74. Park, J. and R. Sandhu, The UCONABC usage control model. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 2004. 7(1): p. 128-174.
75. Sandhu, R. and J. Park., Usage Control: A Vision for Next Generation Access Control. MMM-ACNS 2003,LNCS 2776, 2003: p. 17-31.
76. Al-Kahtani, M.A. and R. Sandhu. A Model for Attribute-Based User-Role Assignment. in Procedings of the 18th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 2002. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
77. Al-Kahtani, M.A. and R. Sandhu. Induced role hierarchies with attribute-based RBAC. 2003. Villa Gallia, Como, Italy: Association for Computing Machinery.
78. Al-Kahtani, M.A. and R. Sandhu. Rule-Based RBAC with negative authorization. 2004. Tucson, AZ, United States: IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1314, United States.
79. Kern, A. and C. Walhorn. Rule support for role-based access control. 2005. Stockholm, Sweden: Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY 10036-5701, US.
80. Chandramouli, R., Business Process Driven Framework for defining an Access Control Service based on Roles and Rules. 23rd National Information Systems Security Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 2003.
81. Lobo, J., R. Bhatia, and S. Naqvi, A Policy Description Language. . In Proc. of National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence,Orlando, FL, USA, 1999.
82. Bertino, E., et al., A System to Specify and Manage Multipolicy Access Control Models. . Proc. POLICY 2002, IEEE Computer Society 2002: p. 116–127.
83. Jajodia, S., P. Samarati, and V.S. Subrahmanian, A Logical Language for Expressing Authorizations. Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 1997: p. 31-42.
84. Bertino, E., et al., A Logical Framework for Reasoning about Access Control Models, in SACMAT'01. 2001: Chantilly,Virginia,USA.
85. Crescini, V.F. and Y. Zhang, A Logic Based Approach for Dynamic Access Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2004. 623-635.
86. Jajodia, S., et al., A Unified Framework for Enforcing Multiple Access Control Policies. Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1997: p. 474-485.
87. Neuman, T.R.a.C., Representation and Evaluation of Security Policies for Distributed System Services. Proceedings of the 2000 DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 2000.
88. Barker, S., Distributed Access Control: A Logic-Based Approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2003. 217-228.
89. Kim, D.-K., et al., Modeling Role-Based Access Control Using Parameterized UML Models. FASE 2004, LNCS 2984, 2004: p. 180–193.
90. Park, S. and G. Kwon, Verification of UML-Based Security Policy Model. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2005. 973-982.
91. Koch, M., L.V. Mancini, and F. Parisi-Presicce, Administrative scope in the graph-based framework, in Proceedings of the ninth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies. 2004, ACM Press: Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
92. Manuel, K., V.M. Luigi, and P.-P. Francesco, A graph-based formalism for RBAC. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 2002. 5(3): p. 332-365.
93. Koch, M., L.V. Mancini, and F. Parisi-Presicce, Decidability of Safety in Graph-Based Models for Access Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2002. 229-243.
94. Warner, J., V. Atluri, and R. Mukkamala, An Attribute Graph Based Approach to Map Local Access Control Policies to Credential Based Access Control Policies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2005. 134-147.
95. Hitchens, M. and V. Varadharajan, Tower: A Language for Role Based Access Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2001. 88.
96. Ribeiro, C., A. Zuquete, and P. Ferreira, SPL: An Access Control Language for Security Policies with Complex Constraints. Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, 2001.
97. OASIS, eXtensible Access Control Markup Language, Version 2.0. OASIS Standard, http://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/2.0/access_control-xacml-2.0-core-spec-os.pdf, 2005.
98. Kagal, L., T. Finin, and A. Joshi, A Policy Language for a Pervasive Computing Environment. Proceedings of IEEE Fourth International Workshop on Policy (Policy 2003). Lake Como, Italy, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2003(June): p. 63-76.
99. Damianou, N., et al., The Ponder Policy Specification Language. Proc. Policy 2001: Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, Bristol, UK, Springer-Verlag LNCS 1995, 2001: p. 18-39.
100. Bettini, C., et al., Provisions and Obligations in Policy Management and Security Applications, in Proceedings of the 28th VLDB Conference. 2002: Hong Kong, China.
101. Kagal, L., T. Finin, and A. Joshi, A Policy Based Approach to Security for the Semantic Web. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2003. 402-418.
102. Anutariya, C., et al., A Rule-Based XML Access Control Model. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2003. 35-48.
103. Ortalo, R., A Flexible Method for Information System Security Policy Specification. Proceedings of 5th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS98), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, Springer-Verlag., 1998.
104. Sloman, M., Policy driven management for distributed systems. Journal of Network and Systems Management,, 1994. 2: p. 333.
105. Woo, T.Y.C. and S.S. Lam., Authorizations in distributed systems: A new approach. Journal of Computer Security, 1993. 2(2-3): p. 107–136.
106. Hoagland, J.A., R. Pandey, and K.N. Levitt. , Security Policy Specificaton Using a Graphical Approach. Technical report CSE-98-3, UC Davis Computer Science Department, July 22, 1998.
107. Minsky, N.H. and V. Ungureanu, Unified support for heterogeneous security policies in distributed systems. In Proceedings of the 7th USENIX Security Symposium(SECURITY-98), Berkeley. Usenix Association., Jan. 26–29,1998: p. 131–142.
108. Bevier, W.R. and W.D. Young., A constraint language for adage. Technical report, Computational Logic, Inc., Apr.1997.
109. OASIS, eXtensible Access Control Markup Language, Version 1.0. OASIS Standard,http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/2406/oasis-xacml-1.0.pdf, 2003.
110. Damianou, N., N. Dulay, E. Lupu, and M. Sloman. , Ponder: A Language for Specifying Security and Management Policies for Distributed Systems.The Language Specification -Version 2.2. , in Research Report DoC 2000/1, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, Department of Computing, London. 3 April, 2000.
111. Kagal, L., Rei: A Policy Language for the Me-Centric Project HP Labs Technical Report, HPL-2002-270, 2002.
112. Uszok, A., et al., KAoS policy and domain services: Toward a description-logic approach to policy representation, deconfliction, and enforcement. Proc. of IEEE 4th International Workshop on Policy, Lake Como, Italy,, June 2003: p. 93-98.
113. OASIS, Profiles for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0. http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-profiles-2.0-os.pdf, 15 March 2005.
114. Bandara, A.K., E.C. Lupu, and A. Russo, Using Event Calculus to Formalise Policy Specification and Analysis. 4th IEEE Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (Policy 2003), Lake Como, Italy, , June 2003.
115. Burkhardt, J., Horst Henn, and S. Hepper, Pervasive Computing: Technology and Architecture of Mobile Internet Applications. USA:Addison Wesley Professional, Nov. 2001.
116. Bradshaw, J.M., et al., KAoS: Toward an industrial-strength generic agent architecture. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software Agents. Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press., 1997: p. 375-418.
117. Johnson, M., et al., KAoS semantic policy and domain services: An application of DAML to Web-Services-based grid architectures. Proceedings of the AAMAS 03 Workshop on Web Services and Agent-Based Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, July 2003.
118. Tonti, G., et al., Semantic web languages for policy representation and reasoning: A comparison of KAoS, Rei and Ponder. Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, Oct. 2003.
119. Fikes, R., J. Jenkins, and G. Frank, JTP: A System Architecture and Component Library for Hybrid Reasoning. Proceedings of the Seventh World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics. Orlando, Florida, USA. , July, 2003.
120. Toninelli, A., et al., Rule-based and Ontology-based Policies: Toward a Hybrid Approach to Control Agents in Pervasive Environments. The Semantic Web and Policy Workshop – ISWC 2005 , Galway, November 7, 2005.
121. Quillian, M.R., Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic capabilities. Behavioral Science, 1967. 12: p. 410–430.
122. Minsky, M., A framework for representing knowledge. In P.Winston,Ed. The Psychology of Computer Vision, New York:McGraw-Hill, 1975: p. 211-277.
123. Minsky, M., A framework for representing knowledge. In J. Haugeland,editor, Mind Design. The MIT Press. 1981.
124. Lehmann, F., Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence. Pergamon Press, Oxford UK. 1992.
125. Hayes., P.J., The logic of frames. In D. Metzing, editor, Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding, Walter de Gruyter and Co. 1979: p. 46–61. .
126. Brachman, R.J. and H.J. Levesque, Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos. 1985.
127. Baader, F., et al., The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. 2003: Cambridge University Press.
128. Schmidt-Schau?, M. and G. Smolka., Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence, 1991. 48(1): p. 1-26.
129. Horrocks, I. and U. Sattler, Ontology reasoning in the SHOQ(D) description logic. Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), 2001: p. 199–204.
130. Berners-Lee, T.i., W eaving the W eb. Harpur, San Francisco. 1999.
131. Gruber, T., A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 1993. 5: p. 199-220.
132. Gruber, T.R., Ontolingua: a translation app roach to portable ontology specifications. KnowledgeA cquisition, 1993. 5(2): p. 199-220.
133. MacGregor, Inside the LOOM classifier S IGART Bulletim, 1991. 2(3): p. 70-76.
134. Borgida, P.-S., A semantic and comp lete algorithm for subsump tion in the CLA SS descrip tion logics. Journal of A rtificial Intelligent Research, 1994. 1: p. 211-308.
135. W3C, Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/, 27 March 2000.
136. Karp, P.D., V.K. Chaudhri, and J. Thomere, XOL: An XML-based ontology exchange language. Version 0.3. http://www.ai.sri.com/pkarp/xol/xol.html, 1999.
137. I. Horrocks, D.F., J. Boekstra, S. Decker, M. Erdmann, C. Goble, F. Van Harmelen, M. Klein, S. Staab, R. Studer, and E. Motta, The Ontology Inference Layer OIL. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dieter/oil/Tr/oil.pdf, 2000.
138. McGuinness, D.L., et al., Daml-ont: An ontology language for the semantic web. In D. Fensel, J. Hendler, H. Lieberman & W. Wahlster, eds, `Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to its Full Potential', MIT Press, 2003.
139. Horrocks, I., DAML+OIL: A description logic for the semantic web. Bull of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering, 2002. 25(1): p. 4-9.
140. Bechhofer, F.H., J. Hendler OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/. Feb.10 2004.
141. Horrocks, I. and P.F. Patel-Schneider., Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. Fensel D, Sycara D, Mylopoulos D, ed. Proc of the 2003 International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2003), Berlin: Springer, 2003: p. 17-29.
142. Baader, F., I. Horrocks, and U.D. Sattler, escription logics as ontology languages for the semantic Web. Hutter D, Stephan W, eds. Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning: Essays in Honor of J?rg Siekmann on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. LNAI 2605, Springer-Verlag, 2005: p. 228-248.
143. Didriksen, T., Rule Based Database Access Control -A Practical Approach. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on Role Based Access Control, Fairfax,Va,USA, 1997: p. 143-151.
144. Gebe, G., Managed Authorization Services: Implementing Roles, Rules, and Policies. 2004, Burton Group: Midvale,Utah, USA.
145. Sandhu, R. and J.S. Park, Decentralized user-role assignment for Web-based Intranets. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, 1998: p. 1-12.
146. Bertino, E., P. Samarati, and S. Jajodia, An Extended Authorization Model for Relational Databases. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1997. 9(1): p. 85-101.
147. Koch, M., L.V. Mancini, and F. Parisi-Presicce, Conflict Detection and Resolution in Access Control Policy Specifications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2002. 223.
148. JAJODIA, S., et al., Flexible Support for Multiple Access Control Policies. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 2001. 26(2): p. 214-260.
149. Brachman, R.J., What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1977. 9(2): p. 127-152
150. Brachman, R.J. and J.G. Schmolze., An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, . 9, 1985. 2: p. 171–216.
151. Edelmann, J. and B. Owsnicki, Data models in knowledge representation systems: A case study. C. R. Rollinger and W. Horn, editors, GWAI-86 and 2. ¨ Osterreichische Artificial-Intelligence-Tagung, volume 124 of Informatik-Fachberichte, Springer, 1986: p. 69–74.
152. Mays, E., R. Dionne, and R. Weida, K-Rep system overview. SIGART Bull., 1991. 2(3): p. 93–97.
153. Brachman, R.J., et al., Living with CLASSIC: When and how to use a KL-ONE-like language. John F. Sowa, editor, Principles of Semantic Networks, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1991: p. 401–456.
154. Baader, F. and P. Hanschke, A schema for integrating concrete domains into concept languages. Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'91), 1991: p. 452–457.
155. Carsten, L., Reasoning with Concrete Domains, in Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1999, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
156. Horrocks, I. and U. Sattle, A Description Logic with Transitive and Converse Roles and Role Hierachies. LTCS-Report 98-05, LuFg Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH Aachen,Germany, 1998.
157. Horrocks, I. and U. Sattle, Optimised Reasoning for SHIQ. Proc. of the 15th Eur. conf. on Artificial Intelligence(ECAI 2002), 2002: p. 277-281.
158. Schild, K., A correspondence theory for terminological logics:Preliminary report. Proceedings of 12th international Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence(IJCAI'91), 1991: p. 466-471.
159. Nebel, B., Terminological Reasoning is Inherently Intractable. Artificial Intelligence, 1990. 43: p. 235-249.
160. Baader, F., et al., An Empirical Analysis of Optimization Techniques for Terminological Representation Systems or: Making KRIS get a move on. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning(KR'92), 1992: p. 270-281.
161. Haarslev, V. and R. Moller, RACER System Description Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning,Siena, Italy, 2001: p. 701 -706
162. Horrocks, I., Using an Expressive Description Logic:FaCT or Fiction? Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning(KR'98), 1998: p. 636-647.
163. Patel-Shneider, P.F., DLP. Description Logics, 1999.
164. Buchheit, M., F.M. Donini, and A. Schaerf, Decidable Reasoning in Terminological Knowledge Representation System. Journal of A rtificial Intelligent Research, 1993. 1: p. 109-138.
165. DCMI, Dublin Core Metadata Element Set,Version 1.1:Reference Description. DCMI Recommendation,URL http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/, June 2003.
166. 胡鹤, 刘大有, and 王生生, Web 本体语言的分析与比较. 计算机工程, 2005. 31(4).
167. Patel-Schneider, P.F., P. Hayes, and I. Horrocks, OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax W3C Recommendation ,URL http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/, 10 February 2004
168. Horrocks, I., P.F. Patel-Schneider, and F.v. Harmelen, Reviewing the Design of DAML+OIL:An Ontology Language for the Semantic Web. Proc. of the 18th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence(AAAI 2002),AAAI Press, 2002: p. 792-797.
169. Brachman, R., V. Gilbert, and H. Levesque, An Essential Hybrid Reasoning System: Knowledge and Symbol Level Accounts of KRYPTON. IJCAI-85, 1985: p. 532-539.
170. Myers, K., Hybrid Reasoning Using Universal Attachment. AI 67, 1994: p. 329-375.
171. Pan, J.Z., Reasoning Support for OWL-E(Extended Abstratc). Proc.of Doctoral Programme in the 2004 International Joint Conference of Automated Reasoning(IJCAR2004), July 2004.
172. Pan, J.Z., Description Logics:Reasoning Support For the Semantic Web. A Thesis Submitted to the University of Manchester For the degree of PH.D, 2004.
173. Bechhofer, S., The DIG Description Logic Interface:DIG/1.1. URL Http:\dl-web.man.ac.uk\dig\2003\02\interface.pdf, Feb 2003.
174. DIG, SourceForge DIG Interface Project. URL Http:\\sourceforge.net\projects\dig, 2004.
175. Tsarkov, D. and I. Horrocks, Efficient Reasoning with Range and Domain Constraints. Proc. of the 2004 Description Logic Workshop(Dl 2004), 2004: p. 41-50.
176. Haarslev, V. and R. Moller, RACER System Description. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR'2001). Siena, Italy: Srpinger-Verlag, , 2001: p. 701-706.
177. Pellet, http:\\www.mindswap.org\2003\pellet\. 2003.
178. El Kalam, A.A., R. El Baida, and P. Balbiani, Organization based access control. Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, Como, Italy, 2003: p. 120-131.
179. Schmidt-Schauss, M., Subsumption in KL-ONE is undecidable. Proc. of the First International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1989), Morgan Kaufmann: Los Altos, 1989.
180. Zhao, C., et al., Representation and Reasoning on RBAC: A Description Logic Approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2005. 381-393.
181. Moffett, J.D. and M.S. Sloman, Policy Conflict Analysis in Distributed System Management. Ablex Publishing Journal of Organisational Computing, 1994. 4(1): p. 1-22.
182. Lupu, E. and M. Sloman., Conflict Analysis for Management Policies. Fifth IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management IM'97, San-Diego, 1997.
183. Benferhat, S., R.E. Baida, and F. Cuppens., A Stratification-based Approach for Handling Conflicts in Access Control. SACMAT '03: Proceedings of the eighth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies, Como, Italy, ACM Press, 2003: p. 189–195.
184. Schmidt-SchauB, M., Subsumption in KL-ONE is undecidable. . Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89). Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1989: p. pages 421-431.
185. Baader, F., Restricted role-value-maps in a description logic with existential restrictions and terminological cycles. Proceedings of the 2003 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL2003), Rome, Italy, 2003.