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

Hi Greg,

Yes I'll let you know when I am done, and I hope it doesn't look like I am
trying to hijack the questionnaire, I was just transposing it  into a table
so I could the BPs side by side in the context of privacy questions.  One
idea, is that if you chose an alternative table perspective, it does allow
someone to (potentially) quantitatively evaluate privacy concerns
compounded by evaluating multiple technical specifications side by side.

So just to be clear I am using your original questionnaire to evaluate and
putting initial scores in the matrix just to understand which BP may be
related to privacy questions, and if there are questions, understand the
proper context of privacy.  In many cases, as noted in the BP document, the
privacy issue doesn't have anything to do with the spec imo, but it is an
implementation detail that the data publisher needs to be cognizant when
providing data on the web.

Does this make sense to you?

Kind regards,

Eric S

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Greg Norcie <gnorcie@cdt.org> wrote:

> Thanks Eric,
>
> Can you let me know when you're done? Then I can take a look and better
> judge how (if at all) the rewording changed things.
>
> While I respect your initative, it might be better to finalize the
> checklist before we make a matrix out of it rather than develop in parallel.
>
>
> /********************************************/
> 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 11:55 AM, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Here is a view only spreadsheet [1] that I promised to start compiling
>> questionaire information to assess the DWBP document.  I've granted
>> read/write access to the Phil, the BP editors, Annette Greiner who is a
>> major contributor.  If you would like editing access let me know.
>>
>> I alerted Greg to the fact that in order to put some questions into
>> spreadsheet form I reduced or altered wording.  If the meaning is changed
>> please recommend something more suitable.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Eric Stephan
>>
>> References
>> [1]
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cr6b313LzFa4Y8ImlMJila8zRsN54_ekAZTycK7tchQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> 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:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Eric S
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:47 AM, Greg Norcie <gnorcie@cdt.org> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>