- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:14:27 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 10/07/2012 11:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > Most of the security conserns mentioned in PROV-N also apply to > PROV-O, so I'm all for of gathering them in one place. > > However security conserns are by their nature going to be incomplete > (it is similar to trying to enumerate all known bugs), and we might > want to expand on it later. Should it be a separate Note that we refer > to instead? Yes, that's part of why it's so important to get maximum review. I think they should not be a separate note. This doesn't preclude a subsequent note for discussing security concerns, but what we produce now may be the only thing that many developers actually look at. #g -- > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Graham Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >> I'm in a bit of a rush, but I wanted to raise a new issue concerning >> security concerns before going to last call - I think we should describe >> them in one place (PROV-DM?) and refer to them from other documents. >> Currently they're buried in PROV-N, and some in PROV-AQ. >> >> The rationale is that we want security considerations to be prominent and >> get maximum review. >> >> See also my comments on PROV-N document. >> >> Gotta go now, I'll try and hook this into tracker later. >> >> #g >> -- >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 15:16:04 UTC