Re: Request for review of Data on the Web Best Practices

That sounds like a cool idea! If you wanted to sketch something up, I'd
love to see more.


/********************************************/
Greg Norcie (norcie@cdt.org)
Staff Technologist
Center for Democracy & Technology
District of Columbia office
(p) 202-637-9800
PGP: http://norcie.com/pgp.txt

/*******************************************/

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Greg, Phil, and DWBP WG,
>
> It almost seems like a matrix (table) of privacy questions and the best
> practices would be useful, blank cells could reflect non-applicability.
> What do you think?  If it is useful, I am happy to help.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Eric Stephan
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Greg Norcie <gnorcie@cdt.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> Thanks for reaching out! Sorry to hear about your tight deadline.
>>
>> In order to speed things up, as a first, step, could you or someone from
>> the HTML5 team please use the PING Privacy Questionnaire[1] to do an
>> initial self review of your standard? (We would also love to get feedback
>> on how the privacy questionnaire can be improved :) )
>>
>> I'd be happy to work with you and your team to identify any remaining
>> issues that may be present in addition to those uncovered by the self
>> review.
>>
>> There is a PING call on 5/26 as well in case you want to join in and
>> discuss further.
>>
>> [1] http://gregnorc.github.io/ping-privacy-questions/
>>
>>
>> /********************************************/
>> Greg Norcie (norcie@cdt.org)
>> Staff Technologist
>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>> District of Columbia office
>> (p) 202-637-9800
>> PGP: http://norcie.com/pgp.txt
>>
>> /*******************************************/
>>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Ping members,
>>>
>>> The Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group has published three
>>> documents that are close to completion, two of which we'd be grateful if
>>> you could review. In general, privacy issues don't arise in this work but:
>>>
>>> 1. The Data on the Web Best Practices document itself has references to
>>> privacy in its introduction [1] and in a section on data enrichment [2].
>>>
>>> 2. The WG's charter [3] includes the line: "Ensure that the privacy
>>> concerns are properly included in the Quality and Granularity vocabulary."
>>> The vocabulary in question is at [4] and we would be grateful if you could
>>> confirm that no specific privacy issues are raised by that work (I think it
>>> unlikely but I may be missing something).
>>>
>>> The WG plans to make the transition to CR for its BP doc (which is Rec
>>> Track) during next month so we're setting a (very) tight deadline on
>>> comments of 12 June.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your help,
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/#intro
>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/#enrichment
>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/2013/05/odbp-charter#coordination
>>> [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-dqv-20160519/
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil Archer
>>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>>
>>> http://philarcher.org
>>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>>> @philarcher1
>>>
>>>
>>
>