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

MINUTES: 9 June P3P Spec Call

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:07:04 +0200
To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Message-Id: <200406101007.14641.rigo@w3.org>
P3P specification group conference call held on
Wednesday, June 9, 2004, 11 am - 12 pm US Eastern. 

Jack Humphrey
Lorrie Cranor
Giles Hogben
Rigo Wenning
Serge Engleman

1/ RDF - equivalent to XML-generic-attribute

Giles reported that RDF folks have a way to link in to RDF-Schema 
of P3P. This is done in OWL-S. We decided to move forward the following 

Giles will send Rigo the RDF-Schema on P3P JRC has done.
JRC can transform this into OWL-S

Lorrie: questions:

short term
/ what do we need to do for RDF in the 1.1 Specification

Rigo thinks that we should just update the RDF Schema
Lorrie: We don't need to say something about RDF in the Spec
we give ourselves an Action item to review the RDF/OWL question 
once we are in last call.
Giles notes that just updating the RDFS doesn't buy anything. 
OWL-S would not be that complicated. 

long term question:
What are we do about the RDF Note. We look into this later..
ACTION: Lorrie put RDF-Note into Bugzilla

Conclusion: we don't alter the remarks about RDF in the Spec. There 
is no need for additional remarks. 

2/ Comments on the latest working drafts

Lorrie and Jack sent remarks

Jack wanted to change the DNS, Rigo agreed to change to example.org
ACTION Rigo: insert all the changes from Lorrie and Jack

3/ Primary Purpose Specification

If the 23 purposes look reasonable, Lorrie's graduate will start working 
it and will send result to the list. Nobody found that this was a bad 

Lorrie arranged them in groups. She presented the groups. 
Action: Lorrie, add healthcare service to the list
Action: Lorrie, publish the new list to the mailing-list

Giles wanted something like network services. Lorrie suggested to have 
full definitions of the terms and strings like for the UA-guidelines. 
This was 
seen as reasonable.

4/ XML Schema Stuff

Lorrie felt that the Schema-Stuff looks really nice. You should use the 
old policy 
format, but use the new schema format. 1.0 UA should just ignore the 


1 new schema new policy
2 old schema old policy

Lorrie said, it is not backwards compatible if we put the new schemas 
in, but we 
could provide both. We might use the extension mechanism to point to the 
new schema. 
Giles hasn't done the transform from new dataschema to old dataschema. 
All other
transforms are done. Giles don't think it is possible to do the 
transform from new 
dataschema (xsd) to old dataschema. 

Lorrie: IBM did a custom dataschema and Privacy Bird would use it. 
Giles: if you wrote something with the new schema and to have to 
it back, there is no point in using the format.
Why is transform back 
New format has morphes, building transform would be big and 
timeconsuming to 
Giles: new schema just a tool to build schemas. 
Lorrie: manually build old schema? 
Rigo: this isn't a solution

Privacy Bird interpretes it for looking up the categories. JRC client 
would check 
whether it is valid on the schema. PB would also complain and say that 
this is 
not a valid policy, would only see a yellow bird. 

Question about backwards compatibility. Rigo suggested to keep the base 
data schema 
in the old format as alternative and allow for new schema all over. 

Lorrie: seems that it would make sense to change the rules for backwards 
Doesn't make sense to make the decision now, we should put a proposal on 
the mailing

Proposal: One can write a new schema and policies but would have to 
the old schema format. Missing schema wouldn't be penalised. There will 
an extension element providing a container for the new schema format. 

Action: Giles, provide a proposal to move to XML Schema.  

Next Call: Friday 18 June 11H00 EST
Action: Lorrie get the bridge.

Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 04:07:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:19 UTC