W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: all the SPARLQ policy stuff I can find

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:59:59 -0500
Message-Id: <F4E7EE4F-83DF-4E6C-8EA8-BF50570D7CF0@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> In addition to public comments like...
>
> Section 3 of SPARQL protocol partially out of scope.
>       * 2005-11-17T10:36:33Z from tlr
> http://www.w3.org/mid/20051117103633.GH4185@lavazza.does-not-exist.org
>
>
> I attach all the internal traffic on the topic that I can find.
>
> EricP, I'm not sure what happened; I thought you were going
> to do this Thursday or Friday.
>
>   ACTION: EricP send KC all the team input on policy, cc DanC
>   http://www.w3.org/2006/01/12-dawg-irc

After reading the comments you sent, I decided the simplest thing  
that could possibly work was just to remove 3.2 Privacy altogether.  
I'm not even clear what it *should* say, and the experts didn't seem  
to agree on much except that the existing text wasn't working.

After thinking more about it, I'm not sure there *is* anything SPARQL  
specific to say here. The comments from experts pointed out,  
critically, that the text in 3.2 was "generic" and "template text",  
which seems exactly right, since the only privacy concerns  
hereabouts  IMO are *generic* ones. If generic privacy text isn't  
useful, then I don't see the point of having a privacy section.

So I removed it.

Cheers,
Kendall Clark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFDytPxMWrdIbaAVEURArsCAJoC2o4y4YsxIg5DUs/5uo0ikHS7PwCgraih
j3C1PLrwf7vgSMOPnYwgu3o=
=4vqP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Sunday, 15 January 2006 23:00:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT