IRC log of pling on 2009-08-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:59:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pling
11:59:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to
11:59:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.405.aaaa
11:59:28 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
11:59:28 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
11:59:29 [Zakim]
11:59:36 [rigo]
zakim, code?
11:59:36 [Zakim]
the conference code is 75464 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), rigo
11:59:43 [Giles]
Giles has joined #pling
11:59:47 [tlr]
zakim, who is on the phone?
11:59:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.703.405.aaaa, Thomas
12:00:17 [Zakim]
+ +
12:00:25 [rigo]
zakim, aabb is Rigo
12:00:25 [Zakim]
+Rigo; got it
12:00:37 [Zakim]
+ +30281039aacc
12:00:47 [rigo]
zakim, aacc is Giles
12:00:47 [Zakim]
+Giles; got it
12:00:48 [Zakim]
12:00:58 [rigo]
zakim, aaaa is Alissa
12:00:58 [Zakim]
+Alissa; got it
12:01:24 [rigo]
12:01:37 [Zakim]
+ +358.504.87aadd
12:02:06 [rigo]
zakim, aadd is Hannes
12:02:06 [Zakim]
+Hannes; got it
12:05:32 [rigo]
zakim, who is here?
12:05:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Alissa, Thomas, Rigo, Giles, Ashok_Malhotra, Hannes
12:05:35 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Giles, RRSAgent, Zakim, rigo, Ashok_Malhotra, tlr
12:06:12 [tlr]
ScribeNick: tlr
12:06:15 [tlr]
12:06:18 [tlr]
topic: action item review
12:06:24 [tlr]
12:06:39 [rigo]] --PENDING
12:06:43 [tlr]
[PENDING] ACTION: RI &RW to followup with MA WG actions
12:06:55 [tlr]
Meeting: PLING
12:06:57 [tlr]
Chair: Rigo
12:06:59 [tlr]
Scribe: Thomas
12:07:10 [tlr]
topic: Device API Working Group
12:07:17 [tlr]
12:08:04 [tlr]
12:08:07 [tlr]
12:08:38 [tlr]
rigo: general ideas around policy binding; would like to present these to the TAG
12:08:44 [tlr]
... try to get to general policy hook requirement
12:08:58 [tlr]
ashok: one paragraph? Will be happy for TAG to start thinking about it
12:09:06 [tlr]
ACTION: rigo to send paragraph about policy binding to Ashok
12:09:26 [rigo]
scribenick: rigo
12:09:42 [rigo]
TLR presenting DAP
12:10:12 [rigo]
basic charter to create client side APIs that do interesting stuff, escaping from browser sandbox
12:10:30 [rigo]
...especially for mobile sector
12:10:47 [rigo]
...e.g. do stuff with camera or microphone on mobile phones
12:10:56 [rigo] input from Nokia
12:11:05 [tlr]
12:11:20 [rigo]
...and from OMTP that have presented their BONDI APIs
12:11:34 [rigo] of the concerns is security and policy aspects
12:11:57 [lkagal]
lkagal has joined #pling
12:12:01 [rigo] in particular, security and privacy
12:12:50 [rigo]
...policy part of BONDI and from Nokia, what a policy framework could look like
12:12:56 [tlr]
12:13:25 [rigo]
...WG currently coming together, not meeting regularly yet, starting regular meetings in september
12:13:30 [Zakim]
12:13:54 [rigo]
...reviewing the current APIs, policy will be the most difficult field
12:14:20 [rigo]
...also different notion of identity, arch question of what identity of widget
12:14:31 [rigo]
...expect this to take lot of energy
12:14:36 [tlr]
12:14:57 [lkagal]
Sorry, I'm late.
12:14:57 [rigo]
...widget access request spec is taken into account
12:15:05 [rigo]
...has to fit into the security model
12:15:45 [rigo]
...also related spec under dev that deals with URI schemes for widgets, fitting into origin framework
12:16:25 [rigo]
...that's the environment. Security related questions will be interesting. Other question is what is deployable on the web
12:16:52 [rigo]
...a lot of things can be easily specified, but not deployable or not used even if deployed.
12:17:15 [rigo]
...people should review nokia position paper and the OMTP contributions BONDI APIs.
12:18:08 [rigo]
RW: hook for policy, should be done here or in DAP.
12:18:40 [rigo]
tlr: well formed input will be taken seriously, but has to be prepared. Preparation should take place in PLING
12:19:07 [rigo]
GH: are major OS creators involved?
12:19:27 [rigo]
tlr: google, nokia, but don't know about symbian
12:19:41 [rigo]
...inviting other players to join
12:20:50 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
12:20:50 [Zakim]
sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
12:20:56 [tlr]
zakim, I am thomas
12:20:56 [Zakim]
ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
12:22:05 [tlr]
topic: NESSI and Nexof-RA, Software & Services Standardization
12:22:07 [tlr]
rigo: GRID as Web Services reloaded? Different connotation in Europe
12:22:09 [tlr]
... entire unit @ commission occupied
12:22:17 [tlr]
... GRID unit now moving into Cloud computing
12:22:27 [tlr]
... Cloud as complex interaction hidden behind API
12:22:31 [tlr]
... perhaps related to DAP
12:22:46 [tlr]
[ DAP is about JavaScript APIs that access client capabilities, so... ]
12:22:56 [tlr]
rigo: metadata problem -- input, output known, but what does it do?
12:23:37 [tlr]
... semantics lacking standardization
12:23:42 [tlr]
... agree on how to name the things
12:23:58 [tlr]
... device capability ontology
12:24:04 [tlr]
... NESSI is European technology platform
12:24:09 [tlr]
... roof for all kinds of European research projects
12:24:31 [tlr]
... supported by Nexof-RA project
12:24:48 [tlr]
... policy and privacy metadata
12:25:02 [tlr]
... have worked on some of this in WS2, SAWSDL
12:25:10 [tlr]
... as a heads-up, want to direct them to PLING
12:25:11 [Zakim]
12:25:35 [Zakim]
12:26:01 [tlr]
hannes: this is a frequent topic
12:26:06 [tlr]
... WSDL is basically an XML schema
12:26:10 [tlr]
... doesn't tell you about semantics
12:26:34 [tlr]
... haven't yet seen any promising approach
12:26:48 [tlr]
... that would allow you not to have to go through standardization, but define semantics
12:26:55 [tlr]
... so you can define new services using ontologies, and the like
12:26:57 [tlr]
... what am I missing?
12:27:00 [tlr]
rigo: SAWSDL
12:27:16 [tlr]
12:27:25 [Ashok_Malhotra]
WSDL just tells you what the message formats are
12:27:40 [tlr]
rigo: in several of the meetings at the commission, heard lots of presentations using WSM* from DERI Innsbruck
12:27:52 [tlr]
... but mapped back to SAWSDL
12:28:09 [tlr]
ack tlr
12:28:17 [tlr]
Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema
12:28:23 [tlr]
ashok: you've been speaking of this for a long time
12:28:25 [tlr]
... what's the uptake?
12:28:43 [tlr]
rigo: will take a long time, then take up
12:28:53 [tlr]
... saw prototypes where they've done this
12:29:01 [tlr]
... haven't seen serious industrial uptake
12:29:22 [tlr]
... business models around separate ontologies
12:29:50 [tlr]
... will need description for cloud
12:29:52 [tlr]
ashok: yes!
12:29:57 [tlr]
rigo: use case will become more significant
12:30:27 [tlr]
... no need for ad-hoc discovery at this point
12:30:35 [tlr]
... but will need this for sensor networks and the like
12:30:45 [tlr]
rigo: anyway, this is just a heads-up
12:30:52 [tlr]
... will try to funnel them here
12:30:58 [tlr]
... 12-14 EU projects in the area
12:31:03 [tlr]
... large constituency
12:31:15 [tlr]
... # of projects translates into 80M research funding
12:31:27 [tlr]
giles: I wanted this in 2002! It's been a long time.
12:31:47 [Giles]
No - I saw this presented in ISWC 2002
12:32:05 [tlr]
rigo: wonder whether we face same as in security area
12:32:09 [tlr]
... lack of deployment there ...
12:32:10 [Giles]
(Semantic Web for WSDL)
12:32:21 [tlr]
... need to see the social context
12:32:27 [tlr]
s/I wanted this/I saw this presented/
12:32:32 [tlr]
topic: Best practices for privacy awareness
12:32:39 [tlr]
rigo: goes to the geolocation discussion
12:33:25 [tlr]
... the geolocation spec has some guidance, but doesn't want policy
12:33:33 [tlr]
... API, but further consideration should be taken elsewhere
12:34:04 [tlr]
rigo: how to attach policy information?
12:34:21 [tlr]
... suggestion would be a PLING note on how to achieve awareness
12:34:33 [tlr]
... think about EU directive 2002/58
12:34:43 [tlr]
... ui must make user aware whenever geo location is exchanged
12:34:50 [tlr]
... one-time permission that's currently targeted
12:34:55 [tlr]
... will lead to clash in Europe
12:35:57 [tlr]
... is this a good idea to have this best practices document? interest in contributing?
12:36:07 [tlr]
alissa: what do you think the impact would be?
12:36:17 [tlr]
... anybody going to read it, use it, reference it, or similar to experience in geolocation WG
12:36:25 [tlr]
... got impression that even if something was out there, it would be ignored
12:38:03 [tlr]
rigo: best practice makes it harder to just say "oh, we conform to W3C standards, it's all fine"
12:38:27 [Zakim]
12:38:34 [lkagal]
FYI, Some work on privacy awareness in social networks
12:38:47 [tlr]
alissa: trade-off between trying to encourage implementers to be better vs trying to preserve well-rounded approach
12:38:56 [Giles]
Mobile phones get cyborg vision - interesting use-case -
12:40:45 [tlr]
rigo: In this overall context, raised to geolocation folks that geopriv use case runs into a weird social problem
12:40:51 [tlr]
topic: the geopriv use case
12:42:06 [tlr]
rigo: geopriv has location info element with usage rules attached
12:42:08 [tlr]
... if you use location info, you have to follow the usage rules
12:42:09 [tlr]
alissa: ack
12:42:24 [tlr]
rigo: frequent engineering mistake
12:42:42 [tlr]
... customer takes general conditions into supermarket?
12:43:29 [tlr]
... think it makes sense in the emergency calling situation, but not on Web in general
12:43:35 [tlr]
... economic and social power to impose rules?
12:43:48 [tlr]
hannes: that comparison sounds like an engineering thinking problem
12:44:03 [tlr]
... if you don't have any choices, then it doesn't make sense to provide any information that provides different alternatives
12:44:32 [tlr]
... if company does not want to give choices, then policy object attached to protocol data doesn't help
12:44:36 [tlr]
q+ alissa
12:45:00 [tlr]
... in the Internet, you have different shops -- you'd pick the one that fits needs best
12:45:10 [tlr]
... that's precisely why you want to describe the shop's policy
12:45:49 [tlr]
alissa: the way that the Web paradigm has worked
12:45:53 [tlr]
... is that none of the choices are satisfactory
12:46:12 [tlr]
... not enough incentives
12:46:18 [tlr]
... geopriv wants to reserve that
12:46:24 [tlr]
... have users express what their preferences would be
12:46:28 [tlr]
... might get rejected
12:46:36 [tlr]
... use policy preferences as wedge to begin turn paradigm around
12:46:41 [tlr]
... so choices are more in line with what users prefer
12:46:50 [tlr]
... as far as geopriv use cases go
12:46:57 [tlr]
... emergency service case is exception
12:47:05 [tlr]
... because in that case policy is mostly irrelevant
12:47:17 [tlr]
ack a
12:47:33 [tlr]
hannes: didn't try to replicate P3P's work
12:47:44 [tlr]
12:48:04 [tlr]
... these are access control policies
12:48:20 [tlr]
... in certain cases, allow distribution of information, in certain cases, don't allow
12:48:25 [tlr]
... almost like creative commons
12:48:28 [tlr]
... no enforcement
12:48:54 [tlr]
... malicious actors can do whatever
12:49:29 [tlr]
rigo: what I hear is similar to what the art 29 wp said to P3P
12:49:57 [tlr]
alissa: burden on service provider to define policy
12:50:02 [tlr]
... with geopriv, that incentive is on user
12:50:07 [tlr]
... user has every incentive
12:50:17 [tlr]
... appreciate pain people have gone through
12:50:19 [tlr]
12:50:32 [tlr]
... "look, you still violated my policy"
12:50:42 [tlr]
... on location indication, there's a law
12:50:51 [tlr]
... if you can point at a violation, then you have a hook for enforcement
12:50:57 [tlr]
12:51:07 [tlr]
... unless service provider can't read policy
12:51:11 [tlr]
ack th
12:51:29 [tlr]
hannes: that's why we want to have this as part of the standard
12:52:49 [tlr]
rigo: management complexity?
12:56:11 [Giles]
12:57:18 [tlr]
tlr: so, what if the location provider just asks the user?
12:57:37 [tlr]
alissa: I think that's a game changer
12:57:55 [tlr]
... if you have the strong defaults anyway, the value diminishes
12:58:26 [tlr]
... note different situation in the US
12:58:35 [Giles]
no I wanted to express agreement with Thomas
12:59:34 [Giles]
12:59:37 [tlr]
tlr: so, people just need to click one more "ok" button?
13:00:09 [tlr]
alissa: that's still preferable to clicking "ok" with no say over what the policy is at all
13:00:12 [tlr]
13:00:43 [tlr]
giles: rather than approaching from the angle of people setting policy, one thing that might work better is to look at it as privacy preferences in social networks
13:00:47 [tlr]
... that seems to have stronger incentives
13:01:16 [tlr]
... set privacy preferences in a single place?
13:01:27 [tlr]
tlr: like fireeagle?
13:01:30 [tlr]
giles: yes
13:02:05 [tlr]
... user has several different social applications
13:02:07 [tlr]
... users are lazy, set preferences in a single place
13:02:09 [tlr]
... and that's the policy you're talking about
13:02:13 [tlr]
... set once, apply everywhere might work
13:02:39 [tlr]
rigo: question is who sets that first step
13:02:54 [tlr]
... if within framework you're given options
13:03:05 [tlr]
... that's a place where the geopriv model makes sense
13:03:26 [tlr]
giles: don't want to set preferences again
13:03:42 [tlr]
hannes: we're running out of time; would like to continue the discussion
13:03:55 [tlr]
rigo: umh, we're out of time for 3 minutes
13:03:57 [tlr]
... mailing list?
13:04:04 [tlr]
hannes: dive deeper on separate call?
13:04:14 [tlr]
... lots of latency to e-mail discussion
13:05:01 [Giles]
got to go...
13:05:06 [tlr]
rigo: let's go for focused discussion
13:05:24 [tlr]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:05:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tlr
13:05:24 [Zakim]
13:05:35 [tlr]
rrsagent, make log public
13:05:48 [tlr]
13:06:08 [Zakim]
13:06:10 [Zakim]
13:06:10 [Zakim]
13:06:12 [Zakim]
13:06:17 [Zakim]
13:06:18 [Zakim]
P3P_PLING()8:00AM has ended
13:06:20 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.703.405.aaaa, Thomas, +, Rigo, +30281039aacc, Giles, Ashok_Malhotra, Alissa, +358.504.87aadd, Hannes, Lalana_Kagal
13:06:23 [tlr]
13:06:28 [tlr]
i/NESSI/ScribeNick: tlr
13:06:31 [tlr]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:06:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tlr
13:12:05 [tlr]
i/GRID/ScribeNick: tlr
13:12:08 [tlr]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:12:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tlr
15:02:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pling
17:21:38 [lkagal]
lkagal has joined #pling
19:44:56 [lkagal]
lkagal has joined #pling