W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > August 2014

Re: noa

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 08:58:27 -0700
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8DDDA511-81A4-4AAD-9D67-C1DB75DBA27D@gbiv.com>
To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
On Aug 6, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Mike O'Neill wrote:

> Do we need to define noa? Why not just have a sentence in the scope like this:
> Data is outside the scope of this specification if it cannot be used to infer information about, or otherwise be linked to, a particular consumer, computer, or other device.

Because the main purpose of using a word here is to give implementations
an idea of how far they have to go in order to satisfy the requirements.
If we use a term that has an established meaning (where we intend
that established meaning), it makes it easier for folks to reuse or
enhance tools that already do that thing.

> Or use anonymised which generally means the same thing. We keep de-identified only for permitted use data.

Yes, I think it is pretty clear now that continued use of de-identified
is not appropriate.  It came from the HIPPA side of the universe, where
it exists for very good reasons, but those reasons do not apply to DNT
because our requirements are not about public disclosure of health research.


Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 15:58:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:12 UTC