W3C

Device APIs and Policy Working Group Teleconference

14 Apr 2010

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
fjh, Dom, darobin, AnssiK, ilkka, maxf, John_Morris, LauraA, wonsuk, richt, Ruth_Vazquez, Robin_Berjon, Frederick_Hirsch, Dzung_Tran, Ilkka_Oksanen, Alissa_Cooper, Dominique_Hazael-Massieux, Anssi_Kostiainen, Wonsuk_Lee, Max_Froumentin, Richard_Tibbett, Aurelien_Guillou, Maria_Oteo, Laura_Arribas
Regrets
Daniel_Baiges, Marco_Marengo, Suresh_Chitturi, Marcin_Hanclik, Claes_Nilsson
Chair
Robin_Berjon, Frederick_Hirsch
Scribe
ilkka

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 14 April 2010

<darobin> ah

Administrative

<fjh> ScribeNick: ilkka

Welcome, agenda review, scribe selection

<fjh> 13-15 July 2010 F2F, London

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/0019.html

fjh: 13-15 July is still the proposed date

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/0029.html

Minutes Approval

<fjh> 7 April 2010

robin: email thread started about the bug in ReSpec, be aware of that

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/att-0015/minutes-2010-04-07.html

<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: minutes from 7 April approved

RESOLUTION: minutes from 7 April approved

Policy Discussion - Privacy Rulesets

<fjh> rulesets draft http://www.cdt.org/temp/privacy-rulesets.html

alissa: three elements: sharing, secondaty use and retention
... most important things covered

<fjh> suggest we need section noting that URIs will be associated with ruleset and conveyed

alissa: for elements set of attributes are defined

<dom> Frederick's comments

<dom> +1 on separating the ontology and the format for the time being

<jmorris> 2. For secondary use, 3.2, I do not understand why delivering ads is considered contextual or desired by the user. If I want a reminder of an event, ads are not part an inherent part of that interaction (or is the suggestion that they are in order to pay for it?) Isn't this the marketing-or-profiling category?

jmorris: Frederick has valid question about contextual ads, are they part of secondary use

<fjh> s/^marketing-or-profiling catego//

<fjh> s/^the suggestion that they are in order to pay for it?) Isn't this the //

<fjh> s/^an event, ads are not part an inherent part of that interaction (or is//

<fjh> s/^considered contextual or desired by the user. If I want a reminder of//

<dom> (my calculation was that the current attributes make for 432 possible options)

<fjh> s/^2. For secondary use, 3.2, I do not understand why delivering ads is//

jmorris: simplicity is essential

<fjh> john noted re point #2 that ads could be considered not contextual use but included for pragmatic reasons to enable adoption

<maoteo> maria present

<fjh> richard asks about how rulesets will be interpreted by various parties in workflow

<fjh> alissa notes that policy might not have an impact on law enforcement

<fjh> we might need a side note as to when rulesets might not be followed.

<fjh> richard notes that best practices for selection of profiles is needed

richt: it's must be logical for people to select the groups of data collectors that can get the information

<richt> The suggestion is that profiles are really the business end of privacy. Millions of developers are going to have to be able to choose a profile or ruleset that defines their service...

fjh: are there privacy glossary somewhere what we can reference

<richt> The suggestion is that privacy rulesets could be group centric (e.g. internal (service) usage, public access, 3rd-parties, law enforcement)...

<richt> which may allow people to logically 'follow their data' and digest and understand the data being provided...

<richt> ...to different entities.

<fjh> Privacy Requirements

p3p mentioned as an option

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/0016.html

Policy Framework

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/0020.html

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/0030.html

<dom> Dom: fwiw, I agree we should continue working on the document to get a better idea of the scope, but I'm still concerned about the amount of specification work that specifying the whole of this would require

<fjh> Laura agrees we should review scope of material of document

<fjh> to be used

fjh: next steps to be agreed on the mailing list

API Discussion

Messaging CfC

darobin: Messaging API CfC ongoing

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010/0027.html

darobin: Comments received from Suresh

<maxf> +1

<dom> Dom: suresh made a point about the scope missing message management

<dom> ... given that FPWD is about scoping

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/0018.html

<dom> ... I'm concerned that we don't have even a sketch of what this would be for FPWD

robin: first public draft for Messaging will be delayed

<maxf> … until we figure out whether to add Message Management to the specification

<darobin> proposed RESOLUTION: Messaging FPWD delayed until we have full scope

robin: main missing features are mailboxes, filtering and searching

<darobin> ACTION maxf to list scope of remaining work on Messaging before FPWD

<trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - List scope of remaining work on Messaging before FPWD [on Max Froumentin - due 2010-04-21].

<Zakim> dom, you wanted to suggest maybe splitting work?

dom: alternative option is to split messaging spec into two parts

<fjh> deciding on whether to split depends on time required for the additional decisions and work?

darobin: I want to see proposal first before deciding

<Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about time frame

maxf: probably it will not take long time to come up with the needed additions

<darobin> ACTION: maxf to make a proposal for Message Management, including whether it would be split from the main spec or not [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-dap-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-161 - Make a proposal for Message Management, including whether it would be split from the main spec or not [on Max Froumentin - due 2010-04-21].

SysInfo

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/0044.html

<fjh> ISSUE-79?

<trackbot> ISSUE-79 -- Fingerprinting privacy issue related to sysinfo, need for feedback on privacy risk -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/79

<fjh> related to minimization

maxf: comment is about access control and minimization

<dom> API Checklist

robin: minimization is not specific issue to SysInfo

dom: check list is mainly for the last call

maxf: orientation comment is tricky to solve
... more people should review the sections in SysInfo they are interested

darobin: last call will wake up people

<darobin> RESOLUTION: Publish a heartbeat WD of Sysinfo

<darobin> ACTION Robin to make SysInfo ready for pub

<trackbot> Created ACTION-162 - Make SysInfo ready for pub [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-04-21].

Calendaring

<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/0043.html

robin: calendar problems are challenging

<richt> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Mar/0183.html

<fjh> dom suggests proposal - only gregorian for recurrence

dom: I support Richard's proposal of not supporting non-Gregorian calendars for recurrence

<fjh> dom suggests deferring more complicated approach to v2

<richt> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Mar/0176.html

richt: time for decisions

<dom> dom: we could support only bounded-recurrence for non-Gregorian calendars

robin: summary mail should be generated

<darobin> ACTION Robin to email i18n about the various options for calendaring

<trackbot> Created ACTION-163 - Email i18n about the various options for calendaring [on Robin Berjon - due 2010-04-21].

<dom> ... (i.e. in cases where there is only a finite number of events to be stored)

richt: some progress made offline
... Should DAP extend ECMA Date object? Open question

File System

darobin: File API: system and directories is progressing nicely

<darobin>

<darobin> please review :)

AOB

<richt> richt: would be useful to resolve a couple of key issues (i.e. timezones and non-gregorian calendar support) on the mailing list this week for a semi-stable editor's draft to be published for the Calendar API...

<richt> I'd like to do this before next call.

robin: meeting adjourned

<wonsuk> bye. Thanks.

<maoteo> ;)

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: maxf to make a proposal for Message Management, including whether it would be split from the main spec or not [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-dap-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009-03-02 03:52:20 $