- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:22:12 -0600
- To: Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <fuku@w3.org>
- Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 12:15 +0900, Yoshio FUKUSHIGE wrote: > Hi, > > Kendall: > >> 6. privacy section for protocol spec > >> > >> ACTION EricP: propose "privacy considerations" for SPARQL protocol > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0416.html > >> > >> not much response... everybody agrees? > > > > I think it's pretty good and intend it to go into the protocol draft > > ASAP. I've been concentrating on getting the WSDL right, then moving > > to draft prose around it. > > I'd like to further put a room (place holder) in the protocol for > the server to add (original) privacy/security related information > in its reply. > > For the flexibility, I propose to add just a room where a server can > put any (additional) information to the client. The detailed syntax > and semantics of the data put there should be left to server's design. > > I thought I had sent a message saying this to the mailing list, > but I can't find any... gee. It sounds familiar... but... I'm still not very clear on what you're after. If the semantics are completely left up to the server's design, then it's actually a server-specific protocol, no? I'm not sure how it helps to to put it in the SPARQL protocol spec? Could you suggest some text for the protocol spec? Another way you could clarify is with an example of exactly what would go over the wire in one or two cases. Like all hooks, if we include this one, we need to test it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 03:22:14 UTC