Re: Issue 240 - definition of "context" | alternative proposal

On Jan 23, 2014, at 17:38 , Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:

> 
> I think that in case Tracking gets ported to the TPE it does not matter what the status is i.e., formal or not formal. The key here is that context at the moment is a fundamental element of the tracking definition and can therefore not be left open.

I am agreeing with you.  Either (a) define tracking properly, including defining terms used in it that would otherwise be ambiguous or (b) don’t use the word as a defined term (which we don’t), and delete it.

> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> David Singer schreef op 2014-01-23 01:22:
>> I think that, in the case that the term ‘tracking’ is (a) not used in
>> any formal way by the TPE, but only to label things and (b) the
>> definition relies on a term which is both undefined and ambiguous, we
>> should question whether a formal definition is needed or appropriate
>> in the TPE.
>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 4:20 , Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net> wrote:
>>> Hi Nick, et. al,
>>> Question: do we really need to define the word "context" in this document? Or would it be better to leave it to compliance regimes to define context in their respective compliance documents? I tend to think it's better to leave such definitions out of the TPE, and address them in the compliance docs, if necessary.
>>> I'd like to submit this as an alternative proposal: that we not define "context" in the TPE.  Of course, I'm open to feedback and look forward to a healthy discussion if necessary.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>> Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 08:43:26 UTC