Re: personal data policy

Sent from my iPad

> On 10 Jul 2014, at 8:23 am, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> 
> On 7/9/14 10:52 AM, Tim Holborn wrote:
>>>>> Government is only useful (re., construction and evolution of relevant laws) when they properly understand privacy in the digital realm.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think the laws exist. it’s about the implicit agreements made, and the ‘catch-up’ needed for an LDP enabled world.  ATM; we’ve got institutional fragmentation of identity related data.  If that’s pulled into data-spaces, I think we need to be more explicit about the use-cases we’re entering into, in relation to that data.
>>>> 
>>>> Given the scope, i figured W3C community group might be a good conduit; given the broad scope of engagement and perhaps also - community groups located in local territories that might in-turn assist in supporting local requirements, etc.  Yet, i’m not particularly sure.  I know it’s relationship to RDF (especially) whilst understanding the broader potential implications…
>>>> 
>>>> Speaking with GOV. Rep. today - it seems he feels it’s not his role to provide leadership in this area, which was disappointing, but accepted.  Other groups provided enormously positive feedback - so, i’m reflecting that back to the community in seeking to define some next steps...
>>> 
>>> If we map privacy in the real-world (sorta understood by politicians) to its equivalent in the digital realm (sorta understood by technologists) we will end up with what we need. Getting there, is the challenge as there are too many points of confusion (right now) impeding this desperately needed progress.
>>> 
>>> Note, when I refer to "RDF" is am actually referring to a language rather than any specific notation used to inscribe data representation to documents. Unfortunately, specific notations orientation of most RDF specs is still a source of confusion and conflict :(
>>> 
>>> We need to get the folks to perceive RDF as a Language for representing the nature and manifestation or entity relationships, using a variety of notations. Once that's out of the way, folks will start thinking more about the implications of entity relations semantics (which underlie everything) first, instead of thinking (as is often the case) first about who or how they are going to write a parser for a specific specific RDF notation (or which there are many: Plain Old Semantic HTML [POSH], "Link:" in HTTP, and the other usual suspects i.e., N-Triples, Turtle, RDFa, JSON-LD, Microdata etc..) .
>>> 
>> 
>> The function provided by Creative Commons isn’t simply about compliance or enforcement - it’s more about the agreement.  The fact that someone who created something can assert a form of rights to it, and seek that others respect that decision in relation to their ‘stuff’.  Obviously data relating to a person is different to traditional forms of content; and even within the greeny-grey, and quite opaque sphere of the two fields - the use of ‘metadata’, definitions of what is content and what is data - is often conveyed in an array of different means and definitions.
>> 
>> If the supplier of this data/content/metadata/identifier data/identity data/sensor-data (etc) sought to assert a license-principle - then overtime, even if it’s simply wordpress users deploying it to begin with, i think, much like Creative Commons, it would slowly gain acceptance.  once something like a cc license is inserted into a table, in relation to data - the data can obviously be filtered in relation to that field.. therein also, if/when compliance requirements change, the cost of maintaining compliance might go down - or moreover, customer relationships become enhanced - another means to reduce unwanted traffic - a really sophisticated ‘web-sticker’ that basically extends that concept of ‘no junk mail please’ to the era of semantic web...
>> 
>> I agree re: RDF.  the semantics of TTL, Semantic Web, JSON-LD and all the other variants describing a similar function - well…  W3C Standards orientated is the most important factor for me.  No point breaking down SNS’s by creating a better, bigger, more uncontrollable data funnel.  At least data is institutionally fragmented in its current SNS structures; yet, i still think we can do better :)
> 
> You can use a CC license to describe rights. You can even check to see that your license terms are being honored via Linked Data -- basically follow-your-nose via HTTP logs to where you data might be in use etc..
Yes.  The problem is that personal data rights is outside of the scope for Creative Commons, which focuses on "content".  

People involved with cc have been supportive, but suggested something external would need to be defined...

I basically need to fork cc, and edit the content / ns, yet from a community standpoint, I need to figure out whether it's better to use an existing ontology, create a new-one that helps existing standards work together (WAC, paw, rightsml? There's lots...), whilst forging the community that can also assist with the documentation and support that would make the "license" meaningful in relation to local laws... 

The existing projects "inspired by cc" don't seem to include the machine code aspect, yet, their has been an array of uni orientated work on the subject (or so it seems..)

Timh.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen    
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 01:10:09 UTC