Re: Draft IG Charter -- Your Comments, Please

Dear Prof Pau,

abstracting a bit, I wonder whether explicitly include advanced
policy negotiation and evaluation frameworks in the charter
addresses your concern.

Here is a proposed change to do so:

  ...

  The Interest Group hosts discussions both of architectural and
  applic ation interest; it will, in particular, consider use cases
  in the privacy, access control, identity management and obligation
  management areas. The group may explore the use of relevant
  technologies toward delivering interoperability frameworks for
  policy languages. Relevant technologies include Semantic Web
  technologies, the work of the W3C Rule Interchange Working Group,
  +++and advanced policy negotiation and evaluation frameworks+++.
  
  ...

  -- http://www.w3.org/Policy/2007/ig-charter
     $Date: 2007/05/21 17:37:32 $

Please let me know what you think about this.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>








On 2007-05-14 21:21:12 +0200, Louis-François Pau wrote:
> From: Louis-Francois Pau <LPau@rsm.nl>
> To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
> Cc: public-privacy06ws@w3.org
> Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 21:21:12 +0200
> Subject: RE: Draft IG Charter -- Your Comments, Please
> List-Id: <public-privacy06ws.w3.org>
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Archived-At:
> 	http://www.w3.org/mid/829A626470446C4AB200C8E4D336B45401EF547D@staff-be01.rsmne
> 	t.local
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
> 
> Dear Sir
> 
> The present over simplistic handling of preferences, and the
> almost total absence of negotiation functionality in present
> privacy languages ,are what should be addressed .What was
> stressed by several ,incl. myself in Ispra , was the need for
> declarative properties , combined with in-language unification of
> conditions , verificationof declarative goals ,associated
> possibly with call to external true equilibrium calculations
> (Pareto or auctions) . If such functionality is not embedded ,
> the pivacy languages will only cary the finite set of
> unilaterally defined fixed policies set by the core language
> ,something people will not want or expect . I trust the above
> text is quite specific ! Regards
> 
> 
> 
> L-F Pau , Professor Mobile business       lpau@rsm.nl
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
> Sent: Fri 11/05/2007 17:31
> To: Louis-Francois Pau
> Cc: public-privacy06ws@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft IG Charter -- Your Comments, Please
>  
> Dear Prof. Pau, 
> 
> thanks for the excellent suggestion. Part of the issue is that 
> preferences/management languages are nearly identical to rules 
> languages unless they are really simple. But we should not cut out the 
> simple things. Do you have a suggested wording for the inclusion into 
> the scope?
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Rigo Wenning
> 
> On Wednesday 09 May 2007, Louis-Francois Pau wrote:
> > Isn't the charter including the needed privacy functionality
> > MANAGEMENT and configuration  functions in the selected privacy
> > specification languages such as XACML, P3P ,or extensions needed
> > extensions thereto in other ISO languages (ie for SLA specification ,
> > access control,preference settings ,  etc) ? Regards
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------Disclaimer--------------------------------
> 
> De informatie  verzonden in dit e-mail bericht  inclusief de bijlage(n) is
> 
> vertrouwelijk  en is  uitsluitend  bestemd  voor de geadresseerde  van dit
> 
> bericht. Lees verder: http://www.eur.nl/email-disclaimer
> 
> The information i
> n this e-mail message  is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. Read m
> ore: http://www.eur.nl/english/email-disclaimer
> ----------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
>

Received on Monday, 21 May 2007 17:41:37 UTC