- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:40:58 +0200
- To: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
- Cc: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:14:17AM -0400, Lorrie Cranor wrote: > >What about opt-in/out (shorter ;) > > But not very meaningful. Ok. > > >>><ACCESS><all /> > >>> > >But I find the 'identifies' a bit difficult because they have that > >profile and now it identifies me ;). 'about you' is much more natural > >and semantically works well with what we want to express. What you mean > >is more of 'might be able to find out about you', which would work with > >'identifiable'. > > I agree that "about you" sounds better. But semantically it is wrong. > You have it backwards. What I mean is information that we have > identified with you (identified, not identifiable). I think we are on the same side in what we want to express :) 'Identified with you' sounds more like what I meant, but doesn't it look like too much of data protection talk if we say 'identified with you'? > > > >> > >>>===================================================================== > >>>== > >>> > >>><NON-IDENTIFIABLE> > > Well the semantic difference should be that non-ident is about > "identified" data > and non-identifiable is about "identifiable" data. I think the user > interface expressions we are proposing make the correct distinction. If > you want to change "keep" somewhere, arguably it would be better to > change the "keep" in "nonident" to "collect" since that's the word used > in the definition -- but I think its ok the way it is. > I've re-read the sections and I think it is ok the way it is. But still the only distinction between 'could identify you' and identified information (we might have identifiable information) is a bit weak. Best, Rigo
Received on Monday, 18 August 2003 11:41:07 UTC