W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > April to June 2016

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

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>
Message-ID: <e186f03f-f424-f5fc-74a7-4269728aea69@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 07:50:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 26 May 2016 07:50:11 UTC