Re: Request for review of Data on the Web Best Practices

Hi Greg, Phil, and DWBP WG,

It almost seems like a matrix (table) of privacy questions and the best
practices would be useful, blank cells could reflect non-applicability.
What do you think?  If it is useful, I am happy to help.

Kind regards,

Eric Stephan
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Greg Norcie <gnorcie@cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
> Thanks for reaching out! Sorry to hear about your tight deadline.
>
> In order to speed things up, as a first, step, could you or someone from
> the HTML5 team please use the PING Privacy Questionnaire[1] to do an
> initial self review of your standard? (We would also love to get feedback
> on how the privacy questionnaire can be improved :) )
>
> I'd be happy to work with you and your team to identify any remaining
> issues that may be present in addition to those uncovered by the self
> review.
>
> There is a PING call on 5/26 as well in case you want to join in and
> discuss further.
>
> [1] http://gregnorc.github.io/ping-privacy-questions/
>
>
> /********************************************/
> Greg Norcie (norcie@cdt.org)
> Staff Technologist
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> District of Columbia office
> (p) 202-637-9800
> PGP: http://norcie.com/pgp.txt
>
> /*******************************************/
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Ping members,
>>
>> The Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group has published three
>> documents that are close to completion, two of which we'd be grateful if
>> you could review. In general, privacy issues don't arise in this work but:
>>
>> 1. The Data on the Web Best Practices document itself has references to
>> privacy in its introduction [1] and in a section on data enrichment [2].
>>
>> 2. The WG's charter [3] includes the line: "Ensure that the privacy
>> concerns are properly included in the Quality and Granularity vocabulary."
>> The vocabulary in question is at [4] and we would be grateful if you could
>> confirm that no specific privacy issues are raised by that work (I think it
>> unlikely but I may be missing something).
>>
>> The WG plans to make the transition to CR for its BP doc (which is Rec
>> Track) during next month so we're setting a (very) tight deadline on
>> comments of 12 June.
>>
>> Thank you for your help,
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/#intro
>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/#enrichment
>> [3] https://www.w3.org/2013/05/odbp-charter#coordination
>> [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-dqv-20160519/
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>
>> http://philarcher.org
>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> @philarcher1
>>
>>
>