W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org > April 2000

Re: CCPP and P3P compatibility concerns

From: Yuichi Koike <koike@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:02:29 -0400
Message-ID: <00fe01bfaef1$302d26c0$74001d12@w3.org>
To: <GK@dial.pipex.com>
Cc: <www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org>
Dear Mr. Klyne,

P3P spec WG decided to change the P3P spec, so that generic
URI forms can be used as a P3P data item identifier.

For the details, please see the latest P3P spec.

I hope this change improves the compatibility
between CCPP and P3P.

Yuichi Koike (koike@w3.org)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Technology and Society Domain

> In CC/PP (through RDF), the client property corresponding to "how many
> widgets I have on my gadget" is identified by an arbitrary URI, which in
> general does not correspond to a P3P data item identifier.  Thus, to
> encapsulate the above statement in a P3P contract would require an
> additional definition that associates a P3P data item name with an
> arbitrary URI, which I think creates undesirable barriers to adoption.
> I think this concern would not arise if a P3P data item identifier syntax
> would allow any generic URI form.
> For example, what would be the implications for P3P if the current data
> item identifier format were embedded into a URN namespace
> (e.g.  URN:P3P:user.name.last),  and the data item identifier format
> generalized to allow an arbitrary URI?
> >So, I think that the RDF modeling shown in the current P3P
> >specification does not bother the cooperation of P3P and CC/PP.
> For embedding P3P elements in CCPP, I agree.  But for embedding CCPP
> elements in P3P, I think there is a problem.
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2000 16:02:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:42:59 UTC