- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 12:03:56 +0100
- To: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>, RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Hi all, I think it makes sense to "factorize" all privacy and security issues in RDF-Concepts, and have other specs point to them, as we did on JSON-LD: https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11-api/#security . On 07/02/2025 16:25, James Anderson wrote: > good afternoon; > > do not any of the documents which involve information at remote locations introduce risks which are not inherent in rdf as a representation? > that would include the protocol documents, sparql service locations and load operations, json-ld remote contexts, but nothing in rdf-star itself. > >> On 7. Feb 2025, at 15:52, Lassila, Ora <ora@amazon.com> wrote: >> >> I am not sure exactly how to word things, but I think I would prefer those documents to say "no issues" *and* point to Concepts (?) assuming it has a statement that covers essentially all of RDF. Having said that, makes me think if it would be possible to have a P&S statement *only* in Concepts and have all other documents point to it? >> >> Ora >> >> >> On 2/6/25, 2:01 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We are supposed to have P&S sections in each document, I guess. >> >> >> What should do into document that have no P&S issues beyond what is inherent >> in RDF? Should they point to Concepts? If so, how? Or should they just say >> "no issues"? If so, how? >> >> >> peter >> >> >> >> >> > --- > james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com > > >
Received on Monday, 10 February 2025 11:04:00 UTC