Re: privacy and security sections

On 10/02/2025 17:55, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Works for me.  Is P&S in Concepts up to the task?
IMO they are.
>
> 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 Thursday, 13 February 2025 15:59:22 UTC