- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:59:59 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > In addition to public comments like... > > Section 3 of SPARQL protocol partially out of scope. > * 2005-11-17T10:36:33Z from tlr > http://www.w3.org/mid/20051117103633.GH4185@lavazza.does-not-exist.org > > > I attach all the internal traffic on the topic that I can find. > > EricP, I'm not sure what happened; I thought you were going > to do this Thursday or Friday. > > ACTION: EricP send KC all the team input on policy, cc DanC > http://www.w3.org/2006/01/12-dawg-irc After reading the comments you sent, I decided the simplest thing that could possibly work was just to remove 3.2 Privacy altogether. I'm not even clear what it *should* say, and the experts didn't seem to agree on much except that the existing text wasn't working. After thinking more about it, I'm not sure there *is* anything SPARQL specific to say here. The comments from experts pointed out, critically, that the text in 3.2 was "generic" and "template text", which seems exactly right, since the only privacy concerns hereabouts IMO are *generic* ones. If generic privacy text isn't useful, then I don't see the point of having a privacy section. So I removed it. Cheers, Kendall Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDytPxMWrdIbaAVEURArsCAJoC2o4y4YsxIg5DUs/5uo0ikHS7PwCgraih j3C1PLrwf7vgSMOPnYwgu3o= =4vqP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Sunday, 15 January 2006 23:00:12 UTC