US20080040343A1 - Extending the sparcle privacy policy workbench methods to other policy domains - Google Patents

Abstract

A method and system enable a user to develop domain-specific policy workbench. Domains may include, but are not limited to security, autonomic computing, workload management and systems management. The method and system in one aspect determines syntax of a policy in a selected domain and creates an instance of policy workbench specific to the selected domain. In one aspect, the instance of policy workbench includes at least machine-readable encodings of the selected policy and associated mapping. The instance of policy workbench also includes a compliance auditing tool enabled to check events logged at a target system against the selected policy and associated mapping to determine if one or more policy rules have been complied with. In another aspect, domain-specific policy workbench creation machine is provided that automatically creates an instance of domain-specific policy workbench.

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION
• The present disclosure generally relates to policy management and implementation.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
• Both organizations and individuals use some form of policies to regulate their behavior and use of various resources. Using IT access control systems, for example, a school or company can restrict the access and use of data on their computers. The drawback with this approach is that is does not provide any sort of high level description, rather everything is handled by the computer's low-level access control system (e.g., IBM zSeries RACF).
• Michael, J., Ong, V., and Rowe, N., “Natural-Language Processing Support for Developing Policy-Governed Software Systems” 39^thInternational Conference on Technology for Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, IEEE Computer Society Press, (Santa Barbara, Calif., July 2001), 263-274), describes a method enabling users to enter their desired policy using natural language, which is than converted into first-order predicate logic for use by a computer's access control system. The main problem with this approach is that the translation from natural language to first-order predicate logic can be inaccurate. Thus, a given specified policy may be never actually enforced. Further, no method is provided to verify that the given computer's activity complies with the given policy.
• Karat, J., Karat, C., Brodie, C., and Feng, J., “Privacy in Information Technology: Designing to Enable Privacy Policy Management in Organization” (International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Volume 63, Issue 1-2 (July 2005) pp 153-174) provides a case study of the development of a privacy policy workbench utility. The work describes a workbench providing support for privacy, but not any other domain. More importantly, it does not provide a repeatable method for a person of ordinary skill in the art to develop his or her own policy workbench for a given domain—possibly one other than privacy.
• Thus, there remains a need for a method enabling creation of domain-specific policy workbench, for example, that provides an authoring tool to create relevant policies, a mapping tool to enable the implementation of a given policy, and a compliance auditing tool that allows a user to verify that a given system's activity complies with a given policy.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
• A method and system for creating a policy workbench for a given domain are provided. The method in one aspect comprises analyzing a domain and providing a domain-specific policy workbench. In one aspect, the step of analyzing a domain may include determining syntax of one or more policy rules associated with the domain. In another aspect, the step of determining syntax uses an encoding format as a basis. Yet in another aspect, the step of providing a domain-specific policy workbench may include creating a natural language grammar based on the syntax. Still yet, the domain specific policy workbench may provide an encoded rendering of a given policy. The encoding, for example, is XML-based and the XML-based encoding, for example, may use the OASIS XACML standard. The domain may include, but is not limited to, security, autonomic computing, workload management, or systems management, or combination thereof.
• Yet in another aspect, the step of providing the domain-specific policy workbench may further include providing one or more mappings between one or more policy-rule elements and one or more domain elements. Still yet, the method may further include obtaining one or more system activity events from a log, using the one or more mappings to translate the one or more system activity events into policy language, and comparing translated events to policy rules.
• A method of creating a domain-specific policy workbench in another aspect may comprise determining syntax of a policy in a selected domain and creating an instance of policy workbench specific to the selected domain. The method may further include determining whether creating a policy for the selected domain is feasible, and if it is determined that creating a policy for the selected domain is feasible, performing the step of creating. In one aspect, the step of creating may include at least invoking an authoring tool creation handler to create an authoring tool operable to allow a practitioner to author a selected policy, invoking a policy and mapping data handler creation handler to create a policy and mapping data handler operable to create a policy workbench instance including at least a machine-readable encodings of the selected policy and associated mapping, and invoking a compliance auditing tool creation handler to create a compliance auditing tool operable to allow a practitioner to audit compliance of system activities according to the selected policy and the associated mapping. The step of creating may further include at least invoking a practitioner identification handler to identify one or more practitioners, and invoking a practitioner skill identification handler to determine skills of the one or more practitioners. The step of creating may further include at least invoking a mapping handler to determine one or more mappings between one or more elements of a target system and the selected policy.
• A system for creating a domain-specific policy workbench in one aspect comprises a policy grammar handler operable to determine syntax of a policy in a selected domain. The system also includes a policy and mapping data handler creation handler operable to create a policy and mapping data handler that is operable to create a policy workbench instance including at least a machine-readable encodings of the selected policy and associated mapping, and a compliance auditing tool creation handler operable to create a compliance auditing tool that is operable to allow a practitioner to audit compliance of system activities according to the selected policy and the associated mapping.
• Further features as well as the structure and operation of various embodiments are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. In the drawings, like reference numbers indicate identical or functionally similar elements.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
• FIG. 1 is an illustrative block diagram showing an example of a policy workbench and a target system in one embodiment of the present disclosure.
• FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating flow control of a policy workbench in one embodiment of the present disclosure.
• FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an overview of policy workbench creation in one embodiment of the present disclosure.
• FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating a policy workbench creation machine according to one embodiment of the present disclosure.
• FIG. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating a policy workbench creation method in one embodiment of the present disclosure.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
• FIG. 1 is diagram showing an example of a policy workbench and connected target system in one embodiment of the present disclosure. An instance on apolicy workbench1000 interacts with atarget system1090. In one embodiment, thepolicy workbench1000 includes anauthoring tool1010, amapping tool1020 and acompliance auditing tool1040, all of which communicate with a policy andmapping data handler1030. The policy andmapping data handler1030 in one embodiment managespolicy1033 and mapping1036 instances. Theauthoring tool1010 allows a given user to create and modify a givenpolicy1033. Themapping tool1020 allows a user to create amapping1036, for an instance of apolicy workbench1000 to map one or more elements from the target system1090 (e.g.,applications1050,resources1080, and user ID's) to one or more elements of the policy1033 (e.g., in the case of privacy policies, types policies or policy definitions may include user categories, data categories, actions, and purposes). Thecompliance auditing tool1040 allows users to verify that thetarget system1090 activity complies with thepolicy1033. Access control events that are recorded in theaccess log1070 by the target system's1090access control engine1060 are translated by thecompliance auditing tool1040 using themapping1036 for comparison with limits and restrictions indicated by thepolicy1033.
• Atarget system1090 may be any infrastructure that provides access to resources1080 (e.g. computer files) by applications (e.g., editors, like VI or EMACS) and enforce some policies. In one embodiment, anaccess control engine1060 enforces the policies, for example, limitations on the access to the system. An access control engine, for example, may include but is not limited to a UNIX computer file access control system. Theaccess control engine1060 may be, at least in part, governed by thepolicy1033 andmapping1036 provided by the policy andmapping data handler1030. Theaccess control engine1060 in one embodiment records whether given requests were accepted or denied, for instance, in anaccess log1070. Examples of anaccess log1070 may include but is not limited to a text file or a database such as IBM's DB/2.
• FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a flow control of a policy workbench. Atstep2000, apolicy1033 is created, for instance, using anauthoring tool1010, which stores thepolicy1033 in a policy andmapping data handler1030. Atstep2010, for instance, using amapping tool1020, a translation ormapping1036 between elements of thepolicy1033 andtarget system1090 elements is created and stored, for instance, in a policy andmapping data handler1030. Atstep2020, the policy andmapping data handler4090 provides a machine-readable form of thepolicy1033 andmapping1036. Although beyond the scope of the current invention, thetarget system1090 can then choose to implement the access restrictions specified by the machine-readable form of thepolicy1033 andmapping1036. A person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that this implementation could be obtained by first translating thepolicy1033 intotarget system1090 elements, and then modifying theaccess control engine1060 to enforce these restrictions. A person of ordinary skill in the art will also appreciate that an automated mechanism could also be created to obtain the translated policy and execute the associatedaccess control engine1060 modification. For example, given a policy that indicates that “guards can read all prisoner email for the purpose of security” and a mapping that specifies that George is a guard and Peter is a prisoner, theaccess control engine1060 may be modified to allow George to read all of Peter's email, each such access being logged in theaccess log1070.
• A person of ordinary skill in the art will also appreciate that, rather that modifying theaccess control engine1060, the machine-readable forms of thepolicy1033 andmapping1036 may also be used, for example, by a security system administrator, to review the current configuration of theaccess control engine1090. Theaccess control engine1090 may also be modified to overcome any discrepancies that are found.
• Atstep2030, thetarget system1090 runs for some non-zero period of time, during which theaccess control engine1060 records its access control decisions in theaccess log1070. Atstep2040, acompliance auditing tool1040 retrieves the data recorded in theaccess log1070, translates it into the language of thepolicy1033 using themapping1036, and checks how recorded activity has complied with thepolicy1033. This compliance check may be performed at any time including, but not limited to:
• • periodically, for example, every day, end of month, end of year, etc.
  • event driven, for example, in response to a customer complaint, in response to modification of thetarget system1090, or a suspected system security attack, etc.
  • as part of batch job, which may happen to include a compliance audit, etc.
  • when a new mapping or policy are created.
• This comparison may include, but is not limited to determining how many events were denied, as well as a breakdown of which events were permitted by thepolicy1033. In the case where the policy is composed of one or more rules, this breakdown may include indication of how many events were permitted by each of the rules. If atstep2050, it is determined that execution is finished, then the method completes atstep2060. Otherwise, control continues atstep2030, where thetarget system1090 continues to run, recording its access control decisions.
• For further details of the operation and function of a policy workbench, see Carolyn Brodie and Jinjuan Feng, “Usable Security and Privacy: A Case Study of Developing Privacy Management Tool,” Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, Pittsburgh, Pa., pp. 35-43. That document describes apolicy workbench1000 and its interactions with a given target system.
• FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an overview of policy workbench creation in one embodiment of the present disclosure. At3010, a creation method is executed. An embodiment of this method is described with reference toFIG. 5. At3020, executing a creation method results in an instance of apolicy workbench1000. Thus, an embodiment of the present disclosure includes a machine that is able to create apolicy workbench1000.
• FIG. 4 shows a block diagram of a computing system used to create a policy workbench machine in one embodiment of the present disclosure. Thissystem4000 may comprise any computing node that is able to load and execute programmatic code, including, but not limited to: products sold by IBM such as ThinkPad® or PowerPC®, running the operating system and server application suite sold by Microsoft, e.g., Windows® XP, or a Linux operating system.System logic4040 is preferably embodied as computer executable code that is loaded from a remote source (e.g., from a network file system), local permanent optical (CD-ROM), magnetic storage (such as disk), orstorage4020 intomemory4030 for execution byCPU4010. As will be discussed in greater detail below, thememory4030 preferably includes computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules and application interfaces forming the following components:
• apolicy grammar handler4050,
• amapping handler4055,
• apolicy feasibility handler4060,
• apractitioner identification handler4070,
• a practitionerskill identification handler4080,
• a policy and mapping datahandler creation handler4090,
• an authoringtool creation handler4100,
• a mappingtool creation handler4110,
• a compliance auditingtool creation handler4120, and
• a policy workbenchcreation machine database4130.
• A policy workbenchcreation machine database4130 in one embodiment provides for creation, deletion and modification of persistent data, and is used by the handlers4050-4120 of thecreation machine4000. An example of a product providing such function includes IBM DB/2 database system.
• Apolicy grammar handler4050 in one embodiment is responsible for determining the rule grammar of a given domain's policy. In an exemplary embodiment, it is assumed that a givenpolicy workbench1000 deals with asingle policy1033. This policy may include one or more rules using a rule grammar. In the case of the SPARCLE Policy workbench, the rule grammar that was developed for the domain of personal information privacy was as follows:
• • [User Category] can [Action] [Data Category] for the purpose of [Purpose] if [(optional) Condition(s)] with [(optional) Obligation(s)]
  • Where:
    • [User Category] indicates those to whom a given rule applies
    • [Action] indicates the action a given user can perform
    • [Data Category] indicates the data to which a given rule applies
    • [Purpose] indicates the given user's reason for performing the given action on the given bit of data
    • [(optional) Condition] indicates an optional precondition for the given rule to be applicable
    • [(optional) Obligation] indicates an optional post-condition for the given rule to be applicable
      An example of a rule fitting this grammar is:
  • Managers can review work schedules for the purpose of scheduling if the associated employee has not given written orders to the contrary with the schedule being destroyed three years after the employee leaves the firm.
• Where:
• • [User Category]=managers
  • [Action]=review
  • [Data Category]=schedules
  • [Purpose]=scheduling
  • [(optional) Condition(s)]=“the associated employee has not given written orders to the contrary”
  • [(optional) Obligation]=“the schedule being destroyed three years after the employee leaves the firm”
• Thepolicy grammar handler4050 can also determine commonly used rule vocabulary for given domains. The SPARCLE Policy workbench, for example, provided commonly used privacy policy rule vocabulary for personal privacy policies. One such set specialized the privacy policies of medical organizations. An example of commonly used rule vocabulary may include, but is not limited to:
• • User Category Terms: doctors, nurses, billing reps, customer service reps, management, marketing reps, patients, and pharmacists.
  • Action Terms: collect, modify, and use
  • Data Category Terms: credit card number, customer mailing address, customer name, date of birth, and email
  • Purpose Terms: confirm identity, notification, order processing, respond to inquiry, send marketing information, and ship order.
• A person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the rule vocabularies are lists of frequently used terms. Users of a givenpolicy workbench1000 can use other words as well, for example, using “surgeons” as a user category when specifying a medical personal privacy policy rule.
• A person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the system and method of the present disclosure may also include cases where there are multiple policies, rule vocabularies, or rule grammars, since either the multiple instances of the above can be combined into a single policy, which includes all of the multiple policies, a single rule vocabulary, which includes all of the multiple rule vocabularies and a single grammar, which include all of the multiple grammars. Alternatively, each of the policies, rule vocabularies or rule grammars could be handled by a separatepolicy workbench instance1000.
• Apolicy grammar handler4050 determines a given policy workbench instance's1000 rule vocabulary and rule grammar in a plurality of ways. For instance, thehandler4050 takes as input examples of rules for the target domain. These example rules may be in the form of natural language, for example, English sentences expressing policy constraints. Thehandler4050 parses these example rules to determine a rule grammar that covers all of them, or the greatest percentage. In the case of the SPARCLE Privacy Policy Workbench, an example of a rule grammar is:
• • [User Category(ies)] can [Action(s)] [Data Category(ies)] for the purpose(s) of [Purpose(s)] if [(optional) Condition(s)] with [(optional) Obligation(s)]
• A person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that a user may interactively provide input to thepolicy grammar handler4050 to help in the determination of a given domain's rule grammar and rule vocabulary. Once determined, the given rule grammar and rule vocabulary are stored in the policy workbenchcreation machine database4130 for use by the other handlers4060-4120.
• Another way apolicy grammar handler4050 can determine the rule grammar is by using the specification of the machine-readable policy encoding that is provided to the policy and mapping datahandler creation handler4090 described below. For example, the SPARCLE Privacy Policy Workbench uses the OASIS XACML standard. This is an XML-based encoding format that specifies the available rule elements type and their interrelationships. By working back from this standard, thepolicy grammar handler4050 is able to determine a privacy policy workbench rule grammar given above.
• Amapping handler4055 in one embodiment is responsible for determining the mapping between the elements of thetarget system1090 and a given domain-specific policy. To accomplish this, thehandler4055 in one embodiment is provided with a machine-readable description of its configuration. This description may include the schema of a target system's1090 security files (e.g., RACF), the schema of its workload control system, or the structure of its user and group lists. Given the list of all types ofpotential target system1090 elements, and given the policy rule syntax and vocabulary, themapping handler4055 can then create a mapping framework to map frompolicy1033 elements to targetsystem1090 elements.
• Apolicy feasibility handler4060 in one embodiment determines whether it will be feasible or possible to implement apolicy workbench1000 for the rule grammar and rule vocabulary derived by thepolicy grammar handler4050 and retrieved from the policy workbenchcreation machine database4130. If, for example, the grammar includes 50 grammar rules, not just a single one like that above, then thepolicy feasibility handler4060 may return that a policy workbench for the associated domain is not feasible. Thepolicy feasibility handler4060 takes as input thresholds for acceptable rule grammars and rule vocabulary, e.g., the maximum number of grammar rules, the maximum grammar rule length, etc.
• Apractitioner identification handler4070 determines who the likely users of thepolicy workbench1000 instance being produced will be. The handler is first fed the responses to a questionnaire that is sent to a significantly large sized group of members of the target system's1090 organization. The questions determine who in the target system's1090 organization is most likely to understand the organization policy issues. There are also questions to determine social network focal points, i.e., users to whom or through whom many others interact. The questionnaire responses are then analyzed, to determine a smaller group of the target organization's policy practitioners. Like thepolicy grammar handler4050, a person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that a user may interactively provide input to thepractitioner identification handler4070 to help in the handler's4070 determination, here of the relevant set of practitioners. In one embodiment, the handler stores the identifiers (ids) of the practitioners in the policy workbenchcreation machine database4130.
• A practitionerskill identification handler4080 in one embodiment determines the types of interface skill of the practitioners. For instance, the members of the practitioners derived by thepractitioner identification handler4070 are interviewed to determine how policy rules are created in the target organization. Do they use natural language? Do they use a structured form-based interface? Do they employ both methods? The results of these interviews are fed to the practitionerskill identification handler4080. The handler summarizes the results and stores its findings in the policy workbenchcreation machine database4130. These results, for example, are used by the authoringtool creation handler4100 to create a domainspecific authoring tool1010.
• A policy and mapping datahandler creation handler4090 in one embodiment is responsible for creating apolicy workbench1000 instance's policy andmapping data handler1030. Thishandler1030 in one embodiment is able to store thepolicy1033, store amapping1036 and provide a machine-readable encoding of thepolicy1033 andmapping1036.
• Given the policy rule grammar and vocabulary determined by apolicy grammar handler4050, a policy and mapping datahandler creation handler4090 can compute and build the storage code required to store a givenpolicy1033. Given the mapping framework determined by themapping handler4055, a policy and mapping datahandler creation handler4090 can compute and build the storage code required to store a givenmapping1036. In one embodiment, this handler is provided with as input an encoding algorithm that provides a machine-readable encodings of both apolicy1033 and a mapping1035, for example, XML-based ones. In the case of the SPARCLE Privacy Policy Workbench, this encoding algorithm is the XML-based Oasis XACML standard. Given the encoding algorithms thishandler4090 can compute and build the code required to provide a machine-readable encodings of a givenpolicy1033 andmapping1036. Combining these pieces of code, thishandler4090 is able to provide an instance of a domain-specific policy andmapping data handler1030.
• An authoringtool creation handler4100 in one embodiment is responsible for creating an instance of anauthoring tool1010. For example, using the policy rule grammars and vocabulary determined by thepolicy grammar handler4050, and the practitioner skills determined by the practitionerskill identification hander4080, thishandler4100 is able to compute and build an instance of anauthoring tool1010, which will allow one of the practitioners author a domain-specific policy1033. Anauthoring tool1010 instance stores anysuch policy1033 in the policy andmapping data handler1030 instance created by the policy and mapping datahandler creation handler4090.
• A mappingtool creation handler4110 is responsible for creating an instance of amapping tool1020. Using the mapping framework determined by themapping handler4055, thishandler4110 is able to compute and build an instance of amapping tool1020, which will let one of the practitioners map the elements of a domain-specific policy to the target system's1090 elements. Amapping tool1020 instance stores anysuch mapping1036 in the policy andmapping data handler1030 instance created by the policy and mapping datahandler creation handler4090.
• A compliance auditingtool creation handler4120 in one embodiment is responsible for creating an instance of acompliance auditing tool1040. Using the policy rule grammars and vocabulary determined by thepolicy grammar handler4050, and the mapping framework determined by themapping handler4055, thishandler4120 is able to compute and build an instance of acompliance auditing tool1040, which will let one of the practitioners audit how the activity recorded in the target system's1090access log1070 complies with thepolicy1033, the events translated using themapping1036, where both thepolicy1033 andmapping1036 are stored in the policy andmapping data handler1030 instance created by the policy and mapping datahandler creation handler4090.
• FIG. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating a policy workbench creation method in one embodiment of the present disclosure. Atstep5000, thepolicy grammar handler4050 is invoked to determine the syntax and structure of the given domain's policy. Atstep5010, thepolicy feasibility handler4060 is invoked to determine whether creation of a policy for the given domain is practicable. If not,machine4000 exits indicating failure atstep5020. Otherwise, atstep5030, thepractitioner identification handler4070 is called to determine the relevant practitioners. Atstep5040, the practitionerskill identification handler4080 is called to determine the skills of these practitioners. Atstep5050, an instance of a policy workbench for the given domain is created through invocations of the policy and mapping datahandler creation handler4090, the authoringtool creation handler4100, the mappingtool creation handler4110, and the compliance auditingtool creation handler4120 respectively.
• A skilled artisan will appreciate that a given service organization could use the system and method of the present disclosure to provide policy workbench related services for a first user. These policy workbench related services comprise: the service organization creating all or part of a policy workbench instance for the first user; the service organization updating all or part of the first user's policy workbench instance; the service organization validating (e.g., checking the correctness and completeness) all or part of the first user's policy workbench instance; the service organization analyzing of all or part of the first user's policy workbench instance; the service organization teaching the first user to create all or part of a policy workbench instance for themselves; the service organization teaching the first user to update all or part of a policy workbench instance for themselves; the service organization teaching the first user to validate all or part of a policy workbench instance for themselves; and the service organization teaching the first user to analyze all or part of a policy workbench instance for themselves. A skilled artisan will further appreciate that the service organization could charge the customer organization for the provision of any of the services specified above.
• It is to be understood that the provided illustrative examples are by no means exhaustive of the many possible uses for the invention. The system and method of the present disclosure may be implemented and run on a general-purpose computer or computer system. The computer system may be any type of known or will be known systems and may typically include a processor, memory device, a storage device, input/output devices, internal buses, and/or a communications interface for communicating with other computer systems in conjunction with communication hardware and software, etc.
• The terms “computer system” as may be used in the present application may include a variety of combinations of fixed and/or portable computer hardware, software, peripherals, and storage devices. The computer system may include a plurality of individual components that are networked or otherwise linked to perform collaboratively, or may include one or more stand-alone components. The hardware and software components of the computer system of the present application may include and may be included within fixed and portable devices such as desktop, laptop, and server.
• The embodiments described above are illustrative examples and it should not be construed that the present invention is limited to these particular embodiments. Thus, various changes and modifications may be effected by one skilled in the art without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims.

Claims (20)

1. A method for creating a policy workbench for a given domain, comprising:

analyzing a domain; and

providing a domain-specific policy workbench.

2. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the step of analyzing a domain includes:

determining syntax of one or more policy rules associated with the domain.

3. The method ofclaim 2, wherein the step of determining syntax uses an encoding format as a basis.

4. The method ofclaim 2, wherein the step of providing a domain-specific policy workbench includes:

creating a natural language grammar based on the syntax.

5. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the domain specific policy workbench provides an encoded rendering of a given policy.

6. The method ofclaim 5, wherein the encoding is XML-based.

7. The method ofclaim 6, wherein the XML-based encoding uses the OASIS XACML standard.

8. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the domain includes security, autonomic computing, workload management, or systems management, or combination thereof.

9. The method ofclaim 1, wherein providing the domain-specific policy workbench further includes:

providing one or more mappings between one or more policy-rule elements and one or more domain elements.

10. The method ofclaim 9, further including:

obtaining one or more system activity events from a log;

using the one or more mappings to translate the one or more system activity events into policy language; and

comparing translated events to policy rules.

11. A method of creating a domain-specific policy workbench, comprising:

determining syntax of a policy in a selected domain;

creating an instance of policy workbench specific to the selected domain.

12. The method ofclaim 11, further including:

determining whether creating a policy for the selected domain is feasible, and if it is determined that creating a policy for the selected domain is feasible, performing the step of creating.

13. The method ofclaim 11, wherein the step of creating includes at least:

invoking an authoring tool creation handler to create an authoring tool operable to allow a practitioner to author a selected policy;

invoking a policy and mapping data handler creation handler to create a policy and mapping data handler operable to create a policy workbench instance including at least a machine-readable encodings of the selected policy and associated mapping; and

invoking a compliance auditing tool creation handler to create a compliance auditing tool operable to allow a practitioner to audit compliance of system activities according to the selected policy and the associated mapping.

14. The method ofclaim 13, wherein the step of creating further includes at least:

invoking a practitioner identification handler to identify one or more practitioners; and

invoking a practitioner skill identification handler to determine skills of the one or more practitioners.

15. The method ofclaim 13, wherein the step of creating further includes at least:

invoking a mapping handler to determine one or more mappings between one or more elements of a target system and the selected policy.

16. A system for creating a domain-specific policy workbench, comprising:

a policy grammar handler operable to determine syntax of a policy in a selected domain;

a policy and mapping data handler creation handler operable to create a policy and mapping data handler operable to create a policy workbench instance including at least a machine-readable encodings of the selected policy and associated mapping; and

a compliance auditing tool creation handler operable to create a compliance auditing tool operable to allow a practitioner to audit compliance of system activities according to the selected policy and the associated mapping.

17. The system ofclaim 16, further including at least:

a practitioner identification handler operable to identify one or more practitioners; and

a practitioner skill identification handler operable to determine skills of the one or more practitioners.

18. The system ofclaim 16, further including at least:

a mapping handler operable to determine one or more mappings between one or more elements of a target system and the selected policy.

19. A program storage device readable by machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine to perform a method of creating a domain-specific policy workbench, comprising:

determining syntax of a policy in a selected domain;

creating an instance of policy workbench specific to the selected domain.

20. The program storage device ofclaim 19, wherein the step of creating includes at least:

invoking an authoring tool creation handler to create an authoring tool operable to allow a practitioner to author a selected policy;

invoking a policy and mapping data handler creation handler to create a policy and mapping data handler operable to create a policy workbench instance including at least a machine-readable encodings of the selected policy and associated mapping; and

invoking a compliance auditing tool creation handler to create a compliance auditing tool operable to allow a practitioner to audit compliance of system activities according to the selected policy and the associated mapping.

Images