- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:41:16 -0700
- To: norcie@cdt.org
- Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>, "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMFz4jikjCNFz7it7vHNT87cVtPujeHuttomvjb4jR7u+p2+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
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 >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2016 19:41:45 UTC