- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:21:30 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Roy, you were complaining about the fact that being "exposed" to data is often interpreted as "collection". A definition that is tautologic doesn't solve your issue. A definition that imports hairy problems of identification into the definition isn't buying you peace either. So I suggest to define "collection" for the sake of both Specifications as a process of the fact of receiving, storing into memory and processing data for purposes other then erasing. BTW, the definition of collection is just that. It doesn't say anything about the collection being legitimate or not. This is subject to other parts and rules. Rigo On Wednesday 30 May 2012 00:40:17 Roy T. Fielding wrote: > If we go completely general, there is no need for a definition: > data collection is the process of collecting data, where > collecting is defined by any dictionary. > > http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/collect%5B1%5D > > That's fine with me. It is far better than what is proposed in > the current spec. But it is a bit misleading to say that we are > constraining data collection in general.
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 17:21:57 UTC