SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 08 Apr 2009

<renato> Which countries are +33 and +44

+33 is France and +44 is UK

Hallo Frank

Hi Ashok

<Ashok_Malhotra> 'morning

<Ashok_Malhotra> or afternoon for you!

<Frank_W> Hallo Rigo

Hallo Frank, Du warst einfach der erste

<Frank_W> ja

Renato?

<renato> Hi

+Renato

<scribe> scribenick: rigo

<scribe> scribe: rigo

A Media annotations:

RI: there is now a requirements working draft, there is an ontology for media objects
... problem we had with looking at XMPP was that it just represented the ususal stuff
... what is the link to the rights information
... looked into it and saw nothing about rights information
... got back to them
... no help from that document
... we need to decide what to do next
... what problem they try to solve

RW: suggest to get some issue to them and make sure it is recorded in issue tracker and wait for them to hit the next obstacle to take our request into account

RI: ok

<scribe> ACTION: Renato and Rigo to draft request to Media Annotations WG on http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/08-pling-minutes.html#action01]

B: Social Networking Workshop

RI: Incubator of social networking keeps gaining speed
... expect to get a lot of attention from them in the future as there are important policy questions to solve

<Ashok_Malhotra> It would be good if some of us were able to join the XG

RI: look also at workshop report: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/msnws/report.html
... special attention to PLING: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/msnws/report.html#Privacy
... became now part of the incubator group
... there PLING can play a major role in shaping XGs response to policy issues of social networks
... scheduled to come together next week, will have more information by then

<tlr> rigo: primelife active in social network space

<tlr> ... internal W3C meeting ...

<tlr> ... need broad coordination ...

<tlr> ... decent work in chartering; XG charter looked well ...

<tlr> ... had to be filled out ...

<tlr> ... people present have different expertise frmo PLING folks ...

<tlr> ... need interaction; major challenge for future ...

RI: lot of overlap with Primelife, so PLING could be a bridge and make sure they move into the right direction
... will send call for participation on the list

HT: has someone have an overiew

RI: about XG?

HT: should comment on some aspects, but too fuzzy

RI: PLING has to step up addressing them, showing solutions

<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/charter

tlr: core charter is not to reinvent wheel, but make some state of situation
... opportunity to have the landscape description intended also contain privacy isssue

HT: would not know what to because it is such a large field

RI: planning of the charter , there were lots of detailed charters, some very specific about privacy
... should be on the wiki
... will send link later to mailing-list

=========================================

RI: one comment made with XG
... PLING is planned to go until June 2009, so need to discuss extension

RW: continue if we have commitment from chairs

=========================================

How can the TAG help us?

ashok?

AM: TAG is thinking about how to make the web better
... one of the problems keeps coming up is privacy, access, policy, security
... they are thinking about what to do and they are asking us on help what to do
... they can do a number of things, start WG, start XG, publish whitepaper
... can work with other SDOs like oasis openID
... it is an open offer. We are to think about what we would like to address
... what would be helpful?

RI: comments

HT: what is the specific context?

AM: TAG is thinking about how to help people in this area
... would like this area addressed, question is how

<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/

HT: asking for feedback from all WGs is a bit much

AM: but we are a group of experts, what is our point of view
... personal view

HT: have experience only in location, and want that people implement and deploy privacy solutions

<Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to note that helping with community building might be the best thing here

HT: recent interaction, with W3C was not that good about geopriv

AM: would you like to have something more formal

TLR: there is a complex tradeoff, geolocation privacy Hannes is referring too
... TAG needs some broader concept
... important to know what one doesn't know and TAG should take a facilitating approach
... had a WS security in London, advance notice to AC will come in some time about follow up work
... useful to have TAGs view and opinion
... aim would be the security review of the Web as we know it
... may be a more specific

<tlr> +1 to the IAB comparison

TLR: focus

HT: TAG more like IAB, more general, just saying privacy important
... if it goes specific, there are a million reasons why it doesn't apply

tlr: useful guideance that may involve TAG,

recent example, cross site request forgery TAG would have helped

HTTP WG just said it is a non issue

scribe: it is possible to have such a high level view of web architecture that the actual issues are invisible
... lacking very much current
... a number of arch questions to address, e.g. widget uris where we lacking a connection between concrete problems and architecture

HT: if you want to do serious examination on why implementationn is going, you have to scope down
... only a very small subset of what you have been talking about

<renato> What role does "policy" play in the "Semantic Web Layer Cake"?

<renato> http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/0412-RDF-functions/slide4-0.html

HT: as a starting point, who would write that down

tlr: HT, you are correct that low level documents are the more useful ones
... but also high level needed, but there is always this tension, what low level WG is thinking and what the TAG's view is
... so the TAG is right to keep out of the details mostly

HT: following project @ MIT would produce whitepaper on security and privacy,

<renato> but the "TAG Findings" are all very low low level stuff....

HT: was difficult to come into generalization

<renato> A latter new cake: <http://www.w3.org/2007/03/layerCake.png>

HT: after meeting with geolocation WG, geopriv is also under way to revise
... one architecture document, still draft,

tlr: pointer!!

AM: collecting Whitepaper is good idea
... tlr please write email to TAG about security issue from London Workshop

tlr: will have to talk to team-contact (DanC) anyway; you'll hear either from me directly or from Dan

RI: will not solve this challenge on this agenda,
... opportunity for us to report and demystifying and provide a roadmap forward for W3C
... to have a group note

=============================================

RI: only few minutes left, just running over the long standing remaining items
... will add "whitepapers" to wiki to collect
... liaisons?...
... nothing special here?

<tlr> nothing new from me, beyond what I just said

RI: ODRL Workshop in Nancy in October
... it will be colocated with an IFIP conference

<renato> 9th IFIP Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society on 23-25 Sep 2009.

<renato> http://i3e2009.loria.fr/

RI: F2F meeting this year
... we decided not to meet on TPAC...
... more flexible this year

AM: I will be at TPAC, if we aren't gonna meet there, it will be difficult to travel, especially if not in US

===============================

adjourned

too early :)

wanted to note that suggestion for F2F locations and agenda have to be continued on the mailing-list

next meeting is 13 May 2009

<tlr> regrets for 13 may, will be following a WG f2f by phone

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

08 Apr 2009

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output