W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > February 2004

RE: linked

From: Giles Hogben <giles.hogben@jrc.it>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:10:03 +0100
To: "'Lorrie Cranor'" <lorrie@cs.cmu.edu>
Cc: "'public-p3p-spec'" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002601c3f557$5ad84a70$362abf8b@cs.jrc.it>


>**On Feb 16, 2004, at 4:59 AM, Giles Hogben wrote:
>**
>**>
>**> Some comments:
>**> 1. I don't think the requirement that it be stored as a particular
>**> database
>**> record is valid. I think that linkability should be described 
>**> independently
>**> of the technical architecture used. This is why I tried to 
>**describe it 
>**> in
>**> terms of the intentions and proportionality.
>**
>**This actually goes to the heart of what I was trying to do... 
>**I wanted 
>**to define "linkable" independently of technical architecture 
>**but define 
>**"linked" more narrowly. So far I haven't come up with an 
>**example of an 
>**architecture in which we would want to say that data is 
>**linked and does 
>**not involve either triggering a database retrieval or 
>**storage. Perhaps 
>**you have an example?
>**

Cookies and files used in forensics are not linked to a database. Server
logs are not really databases?

>**> 2. You do not mention the use of referers to link cookies together.
>**
>**I will add that.
>**
>**> 3. I think the examples given are simpler than those I gave.
>**>
>**
>**Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
>**
That is a good thing.

>**
>**Lorrie
>**
>**
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 08:10:04 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:46:30 EST