- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:50:07 +0100
- To: norcie@cdt.org
- Cc: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>, "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
Thanks very much for this Greg, very helpful. @Eric - thank you for taking up this particular baton. Are you able to join the call at 09:00 your time? It would be challenging for me to do so and, as you've shown, you're ahead of the rest of us on this one. Phil. On 25/05/2016 13:47, Greg Norcie wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Also wanted to say - if you want to join the PING call and discuss this a > bit in a less asynchronous manner, it's happening tomorrow, I've C/Ped the > details below: > > > Privacy Interest Group Meetings > Next call: 26th May 2016 > 9am PT, 12pm ET, 6pm CET > > WebEx meeting > https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=meda7c1b71d647aefa4377d4610c67648 > > +1 617-324-0000 > meeting number: 648 986 475 > > Please also join us in IRC in the #privacy room. > Server: irc.w3.org > Username: <your name> > Port: 6667 or 6665 > Channel: #privacy > > https://www.w3.org/Privacy/ > > > /********************************************/ > 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 Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > >> Looks like you got that gig then, Eric - thank you! >> >> As you know, Eric, it's the privacy issues that you raised about data and >> metadata that are the potential overlap. I don't imagine the PING folks >> will have a lot to say about persistent identifiers, API calls etc. so I >> hope that we can minimise what we're asking Greg and his colleagues to do. >> >> Thanks >> >> Phil. >> >> >> On 24/05/2016 20:41, Eric Stephan wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> -- >> >> >> Phil Archer >> W3C Data Activity Lead >> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ >> >> http://philarcher.org >> +44 (0)7887 767755 >> @philarcher1 >> > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2016 07:50:12 UTC