AW: Draft IG Charter -- Your Comments, Please

Hi Thomas,

 

I `d like to contribute and I am in favour of your idea. I also somewhat
enjoyed already ongoing discussion.

 

Do I interpret the charter correctly in the sense that interoperability
between different languages is a major goal? If yes do you have in mind that
e.g. privacy policies agree between service providers and service users, can
be used by RBAC model  based tools to enforce the privacy policy??

 

I am also in favour of considering negotiation means, even if it may/will
require language extensions. Given negotiation takes place personalised
privacy policies can be stored and used to enforce proper handling of data,
in the way mentioned above.

 

Cheers,

 

Peter

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-privacy06ws-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-privacy06ws-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Louis-Francois Pau
Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2007 21:08
An: Thomas Roessler
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-privacy06ws@w3.org
Betreff: RE: Draft IG Charter -- Your Comments, Please

 

It is well realized that it is an IG and what an IG can do or not !
Here is a suggested v2 of your draft :

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interest Group hosts discussions both of architectural, language  and
application interest in view of possible standardization .It's focus is on
how diverse user-lead privacy requirements can be implemented in
languages.It will consider use cases in the privacy, access control,
identity management and obligation management areas driven by individuals'
needs . The IG's privacy language work will specify needed functionalities
to support in  languages privacy negotiations ,compliance and evaluation
schemes in the presence of diverse end user requirements by individuals  ..
Implementation must be interoperable with  Semantic Web technologies,
suitable SLA standards ,and other standardized  policy negotiation &
management frameworks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

Regards





On 2007-05-21 23:56:12 +0200, Louis-François Pau wrote:

> I am afraid that making the subject of negotiation etc..just
> something which is a "relevant technology" is not enough in view
> precisely of the focus on architectural ,language and application
> consequences.

What motivates the IG in the first place is how diverse policy
languages and requirements interact and can be combined; I'd hope
that that's clear from the charter.

> Subject of course to other opinions , it would be much more
> explicit to say that the privacy language work in the IG will
> include needed functionalities to support in these languages
> privacy negotiations and evaluation as well as diverse end
> requirements by individuals . The reference to diversity is the
> key point in my earlier comments . Furthermore with reference to
> the "use cases" the text should explicitely mention the
> satisfaction of individual end user needs and of private
> information user's benefits .

You seem to have a specific wording proposal in mind. Mind
proposing some concrete edits to the text?

My current take is that the scope as outlined in the present draft
covers the points that you want to discuss. I certainly can't come
up with an example for something that would be deemed in scope
according to the your remarks, and out of scope according to the
current text.

(Bear in mind that this is the charter for an *Interest* Group, not
a Working Group; the purpose here is to provide a platform for
community building and discussion that might at some point in the
future lead to actual standardization work.)

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


L-F Pau , Professor Mobile business       lpau@rsm.nl



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org]
Sent: Mon 21/05/2007 19:41
To: Louis-Francois Pau
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-privacy06ws@w3.org
Subject: 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..rs
mne
>       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
> ----------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>



 

  _____  

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 in this e-mail message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. Read more: http://www.eur.nl/english/email-disclaimer. 

  _____