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

Phil,

Yes, no problem, I can attend.

Eric S


> On May 26, 2016, at 12:50 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 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 12:37:45 UTC