- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:27:37 +0100
- To: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Nov 30, 2009, at 03:47 , L. David Baron wrote: On Sunday 2009-11-29 17:19 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote: >> The >> TAG, therefore, urges WGs working in these areas to include in their >> architecture the ability to use policy information to control access >> to user data, retention of user data and related concerns. Addressing >> these concerns should be a requirement, although the details of how >> they are addressed may vary by application. > > The first of the sentences quoted above makes it sound like the TAG > might be taking a position disagreeing with the arguments in the > following messages, against (at least some definitions of) policy > mechanisms. Might it be worth being clearer whether this message is > taking sides in that debate? That's not what I read. The messages you point to talk of a security policy, while Larry was referring to PLING, which deals with information governance policies. DAP isn't chartered to handle information governance policies (and if we were we don't have enough of the right people in the WG to handle that topic) though we'll look at any socially and technically viable solution that is pointed out to us. So indeed both talk of "policy", but given a context that starts by discussing PLING I don't believe it can be confused with DAP. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 10:28:12 UTC