W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > August 2003

Re: Comments on UA TF translations

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:40:58 +0200
To: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
Cc: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030818154058.GB1914@rigo.w3.org>

On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:14:17AM -0400, Lorrie Cranor wrote:
> >What about opt-in/out (shorter ;)
> But not very meaningful.

> >>><ACCESS><all />
> >>>
> >But I find the 'identifies' a bit difficult because they have that
> >profile and now it identifies me ;). 'about you' is much more natural
> >and semantically works well with what we want to express. What you mean
> >is more of 'might be able to find out about you', which would work with
> >'identifiable'.
> I agree that "about you" sounds better. But semantically it is wrong.  
> You have it backwards. What I mean is information that we have  
> identified with you (identified, not identifiable).

I think we are on the same side in what we want to express :)
'Identified with you' sounds more like what I meant, but doesn't it look
like too much of data protection talk if we say 'identified with you'? 

> >>
> >>>===================================================================== 
> >>>==
> >>>
> Well the semantic difference should be that non-ident is about  
> "identified" data
> and non-identifiable is about "identifiable" data.  I think the user  
> interface expressions we are proposing make the correct distinction. If  
> you want to change "keep" somewhere, arguably it would be better to  
> change the "keep" in "nonident" to "collect" since that's the word used  
> in the definition -- but I think its ok the way it is.
I've re-read the sections and I think it is ok the way it is. But still
the only distinction between 'could identify you' and identified
information (we might have identifiable information) is a bit weak.


Received on Monday, 18 August 2003 11:41:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:17 UTC