RE: ACTION [CONTINUES] Provide some data on privacy and context (channeling Mor Naaman) to the wiki

Hello,
 
Is this merger of Privacy and Context final? Has it been approved by all
parties? 
 
Please forgive me if it is too late to bring this up, but the problems I see
with this proposal (to merge Privacy + Context) are twofold: 
 
1. it neglects (ignores) the (most) important element: uses (current and
future) of contextual data. Can there be another group which is focusing on
Contextual data acquisition/how this will be used for contextual marketing?
 
2. It also does not encompass, and nor did the original suggested task force
description, the examination of (development of framework for) context data
as a "data type." For example, was there not discussion in the workshop in
Barcelona and would we not recommend that W3C recommend ontologies for
context? 
 
Finally, where in the XG will there be an examination of possible ways, if a
user requests/desires it, for contextual data to be accessible by multiple
community platforms or between platforms and the "holders" of the context
data (e.g., mobile operator)? Is this context and data portability?
 

Christine 

  

 <mailto:cperey@perey.com> cperey@perey.com 

mobile (Swiss): +41 79 436 68 69

 


  _____  

From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mischa Tuffield
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:17 PM
To: public-xg-socialweb@w3.org; public-social-web-talk@w3.org
Subject: ACTION [CONTINUES] Provide some data on privacy and context
(channeling Mor Naaman) to the wiki


Hello All, 

Firstly, sorry for getting this sent round so late in the day :)

Following on from Christine Perey's email
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-socialweb/2009May/0051.html) 
regarding the breakdown of task forces, it seems to make sense to 
combine efforts in the Privacy and Context space? As apposed to combining
context with portability, as suggested below.

Given that the context we are interested in looking at is one of a personal
nature and the idea of protecting users from abuse of their 
contextual data, do people think that effort should be combined on these two
fronts?

The following excerpts have been taken from
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-socialweb/2009May/0051.html) 

" 2. Privacy and Trust Task Force

This task force will explore how specific approaches to ensuring user and
user data privacy and trust can 
improve the security and reduce risks of users. This task force is also
responsible for the 
development of best practices recommendations on privacy in social networks.
"

" 4. Contextual Data Task Force

The mission of this task force is to document those principles which the
task force members believe to be the 
appropriate use & approaches to control of abuse of contextual data in
social networks. One of the 
deliverables of this task force is a report mapping the current uses of
context in social networking.  
A best practices guide could also be envisioned, provided that sufficient
experience and expertise is available. "

These two seem very similar in nature, and the notion of "controlling abuse
of contextual data" does seems very geared 
towards maintaining a user's privacy in a social network. 

I have also put some placeholder text on the wiki in the DiscussionTopics
[1], under the title "Privacy and Context". I have 
attempted to allude to the fact that there is a tension between bring
private in a social network, and that of making use of 
context, I hope I have got this point across. 

Am not sure if what I have put up is suitable, as I am new to these things,
but I hope it helps, 

Mischa 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/DiscussionTopics

On 14 May 2009, at 17:23, Harry Halpin wrote:


We had a number of organization suggestions last meeting, and task
forces got wide support. In particular, the two task forces that had
volunteer leaders (I think!) was Karl Dubost for a Privacy Task Force
and Joaquin Salvachua for the Portability Task Force. Each should have
a back-up, any volunteers?

There was also a "context" task force that seemed popular, but no
definite leader. Perhaps for the time being it should be merged with
Portability?

Organizationally, what we want is telecons for the task forces that
have 10-20 people in them, thus giving people time enough to speak and
really get work done. However, what we don't want is telecons that are
unattended or confusing, with extra bureaucracy.

Looking at telecon times from the results of our first telecon poll
[1], it appears that the best time for the task forces to meet is
actually *right* after the main telecon. 14:00 UTC. Thus, remembering
we'll have guest talks biweekly, we could have the privacy task-force
meet right after the whole group meeting, and the portability
task-force meet right after the guest talk.

I think this is the way forward, as it requires no new telecon time
booking, and keeps the time and date of the telecons simple, but
allows people to attend only the telecons they want and keeps group
smaller.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/socialwebtime/results





___________________________________
Mischa Tuffield
Email: mischa.tuffield@garlik.com
Homepage - http://mmt.me.uk/
FOAF - http://mmt.me.uk/foaf.rdf