W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2001

Re: RDF standard for PRIVACY STATUS of a document

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:01:38 -0800
To: Dorn Alexander <office@dorn-software.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010206170130.B22742@akamai.com>

A P3P policy can say things like "I will do x with your information"
- i.e., it's geared towards representing how a party will handle your
privacy-sensitive data, to allow you to make decisions about how you
want to interact with them.

It might be possible to leverage some of the P3P vocabulary to make
statements about how documents should be handled, but I don't think
this would be possible 'out of the box'. Much of the vocabulary
covers topics like "how to handle disputes", "how long you'll keep my
records", "why you need my privacy-related information", "who will be
allowed access to my privacy-related information". Generally, it's
pretty Web-specific.

Have a look at the "Policy Syntax and Semantics" section of the spec:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P/#P3P_markup

Cheers,


On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 07:18:24PM -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> How does the P3P work match up with what you are looking at? I believe that
> they are intersted mostly in client-server transactions about privacy (or
> vice cersa) but presumably their vocabulary is along similar lines and
> extensible. http://www.w3.org/P3P
> 
> (I have to admit I haven't gone very deeply into it).
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Charles McCN
> 
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Dorn Alexander wrote:
> 
>   [freed from spam trap -ralph]
> 
>   Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:33:00 -0500 (EST)
>   Message-ID: <01f201c09020$7c356080$d301a8c0@hub.iwy.com>
>   From: "Dorn Alexander" <office@dorn-software.com>
>   To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> 
>   Since I am working on a thesis defining EPR (Electronic Patient Record) in
>   XML one of the major concerns in automatically linking medical documents is
>   the automated recognition of the privacy status of a document.
> 
>   A RDF definition, which would should standardized, defining the status of
>   the document (e.g. invisible=only visible for the owner, private =
>   existence visible, content invisible, group, all ) would advise any program
>   dealing with the data, how to treat it.
> 
>   I am wondering that I couldn't find any similar definition, so maybe
>   somebody could give me a hint where I could find something like that or
>   when/whether some similar features  will be defined in future standards.
> 
>   Thank's for an answer
>   Alexander Dorn
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
> Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
> (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2001 20:02:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT