Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

Alan, I added  a refernce to the terminology chapter of the current TPE 
draft to the wiki page:
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_context
Thank you for the note.

Ninja

Am 24.01.14 18:44, schrieb Alan Chapell:
> Thanks Chris -- clarifying question.
>
> Your proposal includes language around the definition of "party"  --- 
>  but the language pertaining to party is not on the wiki. 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Jan/0102.html
>
> Can you clarify?
>
>
> From: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org 
> <mailto:CPedigo@online-publishers.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:40 AM
> To: Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org <mailto:ninja@w3.org>>
> Cc: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com 
> <mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com>>, "public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com 
> <mailto:rob@blaeu.com>>
> Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define 
> context? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:40:54 +0000
>
>     Rob Sherman, Susan Israel and I developed the following definition
>     of context.  I'm about to board a flight so I will miss today's
>     call. But happy to discuss over email.
>
>     "A context is the collection of network resources that are
>     operated or co-operated by a party."
>
>     This refers back to the working group's definition of "party":
>
>         A party is a natural person, a legal entity, or a set of legal
>         entities that share common owner(s), common controller(s), and
>         a group identity that is easily discoverable by a user. Common
>         branding or providing a list of affiliates that is available
>         via a link from a resource where a party describes DNT
>         practices are examples of ways to provide this discoverability.
>
>         Within the context of a given user action, afirst party is a
>         party with which the user intends to interact, via one or more
>         network interactions, as a result of making that action.
>         Merely hovering over, muting, pausing, or closing a given
>         piece of content does not constitute a user's intent to
>         interact with another party.
>
>         In some cases, a resource on the Web will be jointly
>         controlled by two or more distinct parties. Each of those
>         parties is considered a first party if a user would reasonably
>         expect to communicate with all of them when accessing that
>         resource. For example, prominent co-branding on the resource
>         might lead a user to expect that multiple parties are
>         responsible for the content or functionality.
>
>         For any data collected as a result of one or more network
>         interactions resulting from a user's action, a third party is
>         any party other than that user, a first party for that user
>         action, or a service provider acting on behalf of either that
>         user or that first party.
>
>
>     On Jan 8, 2014, at 8:38 AM, "Ninja Marnau" <ninja@w3.org
>     <mailto:ninja@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>>     Thank you, Mike! I will add it to the wiki and maybe Rob and and
>>     you can discuss in the call today whether to merge it.
>>
>>     Ninja
>>
>>     Am 08.01.14 14:34, schrieb Mike O'Neill:
>>>     Hi Ninja,
>>>
>>>     Here is my definition of contexts. It has the same drift as
>>>     Rob's so I expect we will converge.
>>>
>>>     Contexts are the user discernable locales within which they can
>>>     give or withdraw their consent to data controllers for the
>>>     collection and use of data about their web activity,
>>>     geo-location or identity.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>>     -----Original Message-----
>>>>     From: Ninja Marnau [mailto:ninja@w3.org]
>>>>     Sent: 07 January 2014 23:04
>>>>     To: public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>; Rob
>>>>     van Eijk
>>>>     Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define
>>>>     context?
>>>>     [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
>>>>
>>>>     I created a wiki page with text proposals for ISSUE-240:
>>>>     http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_conte
>>>>     xt
>>>>
>>>>     Currently, only Roy's initial text proposal is listed.
>>>>
>>>>     Rob, as you suggested a completely different approach (rather user
>>>>     expectation than relation to party/branding) in your email from
>>>>     December
>>>>     18, could you work on an text proposal to add to the wiki page?
>>>>
>>>>     Ninja
>>>>
>>>>     Am 18.12.13 19:37, schrieb Tracking Protection Working Group
>>>>     Issue Tracker:
>>>>>     tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context?
>>>>>     [Tracking
>>>>     Preference Expression (DNT)]
>>>>>     http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240
>>>>>
>>>>>     Raised by: Justin Brookman
>>>>>     On product: Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
>>>>>
>>>>>     The definition of tracking that was adopted by the group
>>>>>     includes a concept of
>>>>     "context" that some members have asked that the text define
>>>>     more clearly.
>>>>>     Roy Fielding was the author of this definition, and included
>>>>>     this language on
>>>>     context in the Call for Objections poll:
>>>>>     The above definition also depends on there being a definition
>>>>>     of context that
>>>>     bounds a scope of user activity, though it is not dependent on
>>>>     any particular
>>>>     definition of that term. For example, something along the lines
>>>>     of: "For the
>>>>     purpose of this definition, a context is a set of resources
>>>>     that share the same
>>>>     data controller, same privacy policy, and a common branding,
>>>>     such that a user
>>>>     would expect that data collected by one of those resources is
>>>>     available to all
>>>>     other resources within the same context."
>>>>>     Alternatively, the group might decide that the common sense
>>>>>     meaning of
>>>>     context is sufficient, as it more closely approximates a user's
>>>>     general intent in
>>>>     turning on the Do Not Track signal.
>>>>>     We will continue discussion of this topic on the January 8th
>>>>>     call, but we
>>>>     encourage discussion of these (and other) ideas on the list in
>>>>     the meantime.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>