- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:55:55 -0500
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
Works for me. Is P&S in Concepts up to the task? peter On 2/10/25 6:03 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > 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 16:56:01 UTC