IRC log of tagmem on 2011-09-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:02:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
08:02:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to
08:02:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
08:02:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
08:02:34 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TAG
08:02:34 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
08:02:35 [trackbot]
Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference
08:02:35 [trackbot]
Date: 14 September 2011
08:02:46 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
08:02:50 [DKA]
zakim, this is tag or something
08:02:50 [Zakim]
sorry, DKA, I do not see a conference named 'tag or something' in progress or scheduled at this time
08:03:05 [DKA]
Scribe: Dan
08:03:11 [DKA]
ScribeNick: DKA
08:03:21 [jar]
zakim, what is an easter egg?
08:03:21 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, jar.
08:03:21 [DKA]
Chair: Noah
08:07:50 [DKA]
Topic: URI Definition Discover; Metadata Architecture
08:08:09 [DKA]
08:09:02 [DKA]
Noah: aiming for a major piece of work on this in July time-frame.
08:11:34 [DKA]
JAR: 3 documents - important one is the - meant as an introduction to the other two.
08:14:46 [DKA]
JAR: I've come at this HTTP-RANGE14 issue from 2 directions. First - can I use a URI for a reference to a journal article. Is that allowed by the range14 rule?
08:16:21 [DKA]
JAR: Second way - writing statements about licenses. Is there a standard way to refer to the work that's licensed in a way that people will understand? Answer is no, but http-range14 is close...
08:17:38 [DKA]
… also, large numbers of people in linked data / SW community are discussing...
08:17:43 [DKA]
… for a long time ...
08:18:03 [DKA]
… so HTTP-Range14 needs to be fixed.
08:18:08 [masinter]
parts of this were issues in the early '90s discussions of URL standards in the URI working group in IETF
08:19:12 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
08:19:41 [DKA]
JAR: so one option is that [CC] and others could do this privately. But there is enough interest that we should have a shared solution.
08:20:53 [DKA]
JAR: The question is: what is the relationship between what the URI refers to and the representations retrieved by the URI?
08:22:35 [DKA]
JAR: My definition of metadata is that it is information about information, not just information about anything.
08:22:48 [DKA]
JAR: [goes to the whiteboard]
08:23:35 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
08:25:09 [DKA]
[unminutable discussion on con-neg]
08:26:52 [DKA]
JAR: idea that URIs are used in particular contexts but used in practice referentially. Maybe that's only used in RDF. Premise is that URIs are being used referentially.
08:27:03 [DKA]
Tim: RDF should not be inconsistent with Web Architecture.
08:27:05 [JeniT]
JeniT has joined #tagmem
08:27:09 [DKA]
JAR: Other people want it to be inconsistent.
08:28:05 [DKA]
… notion that a URI refers to something. In the case of a license statement, a URI would refer to the work, a URI that refers to the license terms and a URI that refers to the relationship of "being licensed."
08:29:00 [DKA]
… from an engineering tool that could be used in a remix tool. You do a copy-paste and the tool could just check the license.
08:30:31 [DKA]
Larry: in the context of RDF there is some ambiguity in whether you're referring to the document retrieved or the referent, and resolving this ambiguity [depends on the context.]
08:30:54 [DKA]
… the license relationship could be more explicit.
08:31:08 [DKA]
JAR: That's not the way RDF work - RDF has referential transparency.
08:31:46 [DKA]
Tim: you could have one property that says "I like this page" and then "ogp:like" - these say things about the topic of the page.
08:33:55 [DKA]
[discussion on sockets and plugs]
08:35:57 [DKA]
JAR: …being precise about what the subject of the license is… is the question. What is the relationship by convention - the agreement - between the way people are using URI referentially and the way people are using them for retrieval? Is there anything we can say or agree on ahead of time about what that relationship is?
08:36:41 [DKA]
JAR: I'm making a statement and I want the URI to refer to [e.g.] a rabbit.
08:36:56 [DKA]
Noah: And the retrievable is meant to be data about the rabbit?
08:37:05 [DKA]
JAR: That's what the [discussion] is over.
08:37:25 [DKA]
… even if it's zero, there's no reason a-priori to assume any relationship between the two.
08:37:54 [DKA]
HT: Is it or is it not yet legitimate for me to understand retrievable as "200 retrievable"?
08:38:14 [DKA]
HT: I want to make sure that e.g. 303 are not covered...
08:38:28 [DKA]
JAR: Right.
08:39:00 [DKA]
JAR: I'm talking about RFC-3986. That talks about retrieval.
08:39:26 [DKA]
Noah: 206 is being debated.
08:39:49 [DKA]
JAR: I'm using it in the sense of - would it be correct for a http server to deliver a 200 response?
08:40:26 [DKA]
… RDF makes no connection between the thing the URI is referring to and what gets retrieved. It leaves it up to the context.
08:40:55 [DKA]
Ashok: Earlier you and I reviewed the link header draft - that presents a solution to this, doesn't it?
08:41:29 [DKA]
JAR: There's a description which could be bound to the URI through a variety of methods - a link header, another header, a SPARQL query, etc...
08:41:49 [DKA]
Ashok: the link header would typically...
08:41:52 [DKA]
JAR: Give you a URI.
08:42:00 [DKA]
Ashok: What else do you require?
08:42:57 [DKA]
JAR: What is required is a way to go from a URI to this description that can be done on a hosted platform where they cannot change http headers or exotic response codes - also one round trip instead of two. Unless we relax these two things then semantic web will be out-competed by other standards.
08:43:44 [JeniT]
+1s JAR's last statement
08:43:52 [DKA]
Tim: There's things you can do - change the response code, add a header, add a fragment, a fragment id syntax...
08:45:00 [DKA]
JAR: [clarifying] some people require … I can't argue with them.
08:47:52 [JeniT]
"if you get a 2XX response when you request a URI, that URI refers to a document"
08:50:39 [DKA]
Tim: [on OGP] people looked at OGP and said "if Facebook made this mistake then others will make this mistake and so we should make the mistake legal."
08:50:40 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
08:51:16 [JeniT]
*lots* of people make the mistake
08:51:19 [DKA]
JAR: There are other places where range14a has not been observed. FlickR is one of them.
08:52:25 [DKA]
JAR: There is no enforcement point for httprange-14. So people are not going to be aware of it.
08:56:13 [DKA]
JAR: The statement that such a page is licensed with a license is false if the URI refers to the landing page.
08:58:11 [JeniT]
they'll say no, because they all require server configuration
08:59:09 [DKA]
JAR: you could sit down with everyone who is doing it in this way you could try to convince people to use one of the approved range-14 solutions. [but that's not scalable]
08:59:49 [DKA]
Tim: you could make a validator. People will want to know what they said in RDFa. There will be problems e.g. licensing the wrong thing by accident.
09:00:31 [DKA]
JAR: We could got back to FlickR and ask them to change but I don't want to do that if haven't resolved this issue here.
09:02:11 [DKA]
[discussion on how flickr is using CC licenses]
09:04:37 [DKA]
Noah: let's say the UI says "by posting a photograph here you grant a license…" Now the UI could come back and inform the user allowing them to choose which meaning… Let's say I added comments on the landing page. Did I mean to license the comments as well as the photo?
09:05:56 [DKA]
HT: A bunch of different proposals exist for how to get from a URI to a description about the URI...
09:06:34 [DKA]
Ashok: if you use the link header you can get multiple descriptions...
09:06:41 [ht]
s/URI to a description about the URI/URI for a thing to a URI for a description about the thing/
09:07:14 [DKA]
JAR: We can amend range-14a.
09:07:38 [DKA]
… the whole point of the ISSUE-57 document is to sweeten the proposition of allowing people to live with range-14a.
09:07:59 [DKA]
… the outcome could be that people say "yes [for example] hash URIs are OK".
09:08:14 [DKA]
… another outcome could be that people are not satisfied by any of the solutions.
09:08:25 [DKA]
… we could ignore them and push something through...
09:08:59 [DKA]
HT: Do you have any interest in all at exploring the opposite outcome? That we should say "yes, you're right, you should go ahead and use 200"?
09:09:02 [DKA]
JAR: Yes.
09:09:09 [DKA]
HT: That would amount to a retraction of 14a.
09:10:04 [DKA]
JAR: I've come to a better appreciation for the alternatives. One alternative is to withdraw 14a and let the community decide. In this case, [e.g.] Creative Commons would develop our own approach.
09:10:39 [JeniT]
I made some proposals which got some good feedback at
09:10:51 [DKA]
JAR: You'd have to write in RDF something to disambiguate.
09:12:29 [DKA]
HT: example: Pat is the owner of a domain. He puts up a page about himself. Then he says "use this URI to refer to me" - and now we can't make assertions about the document.
09:13:05 [DKA]
Tim: When my RDF tool takes one graph and merges it with another graph that make different assumptions then we break RDF.
09:15:13 [timbl]
q+ to ask JeniT about "The problem some people (including me) have with this is that hash URIs are primarily used to indicate portions of a web page, and using them for things that aren’t page fragments overloads them. It’s also an inflexible method, because the server isn’t told what the fragment identifier is, and therefore it can’t be used as the basis for a redirection, for example."
09:15:59 [DKA]
JeniT: talks about different ways of disambiguating statements. The analogy that I draw in that article is between how we think about persistence of URIs and how we deal with the fact that they don't persist over time. We should be aiming for people to use different URIs for people and documents but we need to deal with the fact that they don't all the time.
09:16:46 [DKA]
Larry: you've left out link relations.
09:17:38 [DKA]
Larry: you could have two license relationships.
09:18:25 [DKA]
JAR: yes - that's the Facebook solution...
09:18:46 [DKA]
[discussion on the meaning of meaning]
09:20:22 [DKA]
HT: "larry has five letters" vs. "larry has five children" - you have no issue understanding that but RDF does.
09:21:15 [DKA]
Tim: in the databases out there on the net right now there is no ambiguity - the semantics are well defined.
09:22:54 [masinter]
s/five children/three children/
09:23:00 [DKA]
Tim: [some] say they must use another solution because the solutions [given to them by] web architecture are not acceptable.
09:26:17 [timbl]
There is masses of data out there where the people running the system don't have any problem when a table name happens to be the same as a value in a cell, don't have a problem when the same string happens to be used as an ID in one column and as a value in a different column. This data is all waiting t be put ion the web. It it clean and unabiguous and to suggest that when it goes onto the web we should necessarily introduce ambiguities becuase people always
09:26:17 [timbl]
to make a major step backwards.
09:26:49 [masinter]
so if databases don't have a problem, then the problem is with RDF, no? So fix RDF
09:29:00 [DKA]
JAR: what I want to know - how can I set expectations as I go into conversations with the community about this?
09:29:40 [DKA]
… I would like to say "I want to work through this tree with you" if I get a yes, then great but if I get a no then what expect ion can I set with people about this outcome?
09:30:28 [JeniT]
iand's said why he won't use hashes
09:31:33 [timbl]
I have responded to all those points
09:32:27 [DKA]
HT: Should we review and prirotize the candidate amendments? Should we have some preferences in the TAG?
09:32:27 [JeniT]
timbl, so your argument is that we go back and say to all the people who have used non-hash URIs for the last 5+ years and say that they were wrong?
09:32:55 [JeniT]
timbl, that the httpRange-14 decision should never have encouraged people to do that
09:34:16 [timbl]
303 works and is fine -- it is inefficient
09:35:34 [DKA]
Tim: If there are architectural issues with the current solutions then we should design architecture to address those issues…
09:35:35 [masinter]
personally, i really dislike 303
09:37:13 [DKA]
Tim: When I look at Ian's arguments they don't look sound to me. It may be that's he's got one.
09:37:14 [timbl]
09:37:23 [DKA]
JAR: I think they're as sound as anything else.
09:37:28 [timbl]
09:37:45 [DKA]
HT: It's fair to say that the way in which the hash solution works is not consistent with the RFCs.
09:38:57 [DKA]
Tim: I'm really fond of the hash as a piece of punctuation between a global and local identifier. I want to use this in many contexts.
09:39:09 [masinter]
personally, I really dislike using # for this disambiguation too
09:40:10 [timbl]
The phrase "fragment identifier" is a historical and unfortunate. "Local Idenifier" is much better
09:42:28 [DKA]
JAR: if I have a flickr page with a photo on it, is the photo part of the page in the case where the license refers to the page? Some might say no but others might say yes.
09:44:07 [DKA]
JAR: we have an evolution where these things are turning into applications… if people are talking about what they see when the page is rendered, that might have very little relation to what is delivered in the 200 response. There's enough vagueness about what the document is that we're going to continue to have ambiguity even if we do get agreement on range-14.
09:44:35 [DKA]
Larry: so you need it to be precisely referring to "what you see when you get all the data and render the page."
09:44:40 [DKA]
JAR: That's one approach.
09:45:38 [DKA]
JAR: [why a:b solves the flickr problem]
09:46:44 [DKA]
Tim: FlickR could put some RDFa in there which says "landing page#photo" has CC license *whatever* and etc...
09:46:45 [ht]
HT: So a:b is _necessary_ for a solution to the flickr problem, but not sufficient -- WebArch today doesn't even get us that far
10:04:35 [DKA]
Scribe: Ashok
10:04:42 [DKA]
ScribeNick: Ashok
10:05:20 [Ashok]
Topic: Can publication of hyperlinks constitute copyright infringment?
10:05:56 [Ashok]
Noah: Some writing was done. Next step we decided was to get some legal advice.
10:06:15 [Ashok]
... perhaps Thinh Nguyen may help
10:06:28 [Ashok]
... but no legal advice so far
10:07:31 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
10:07:41 [Ashok]
Noah: quotes from product page:
10:08:31 [Ashok]
Discusses success criteria
10:08:32 [Ashok]
... document should have impact
10:09:06 [Ashok]
HT: I want to write a popular press version
10:09:33 [Ashok]
Noah: Goal is PR in June.
10:09:54 [Ashok]
... FPWD in October. Is that realistic?
10:10:40 [Ashok]
DKA: I sent out 3 request to people for legal review. Not heard back.
10:10:48 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
10:10:51 [Ashok]
10:10:52 [noah]
10:10:52 [trackbot]
ACTION-541 -- Jeni Tennison to helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about (deep-)linking etc. -- due 2011-07-26 -- OPEN
10:10:52 [trackbot]
10:11:41 [noah]
Jonathan: we need to bump the dates on ACTION-201 and ACTION-282, I think. Right?
10:11:45 [Ashok]
DKA: case in UK touched on this ... remains a current topic
10:12:00 [Ashok]
10:12:29 [Ashok]
Jeni: We should continue working on the document.
10:14:16 [Ashok]
jar: I followed up with my legal contact. He referred me to a Professor of Law.
10:15:21 [Ashok]
... In conversation with him
10:18:33 [noah]
q+ to say I'm confused about dealing with Ashok's question now
10:18:55 [Ashok]
Ashok: If we go the direction of a popular press article what would our messages be?
10:19:28 [noah]
ack next
10:19:29 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to ask JeniT about "The problem some people (including me) have with this is that hash URIs are primarily used to indicate portions of a web page, and using them
10:19:34 [Zakim]
... for things that aren’t page fragments overloads them. It’s also an inflexible method, because the server isn’t told what the fragment identifier is, and therefore it
10:19:36 [Zakim]
... can’t be used as the basis for a redirection, for example."
10:19:37 [noah]
ack next
10:19:38 [Zakim]
noah, you wanted to say I'm confused about dealing with Ashok's question now
10:19:45 [Ashok]
DKA: Users should have a right to link ... parallel to freedom of speech
10:19:48 [ht]
q+ to cavill at the use of 'link' in our headline
10:20:49 [Ashok]
Noah: Let's wait until we crisp up the finding before we answer that question
10:20:52 [noah]
10:20:54 [noah]
ack next
10:20:55 [Zakim]
ht, you wanted to cavill at the use of 'link' in our headline
10:21:26 [noah]
HT: at the popular level, linking is a confusing concept
10:21:38 [masinter]
10:21:39 [Ashok]
HT: Too high-level to be implicated by anything a lawyer says.
10:22:11 [Ashok]
... the word "link" is in itself confusing
10:22:21 [noah]
10:22:32 [Ashok]
DKA: Linking vs. Transclusion
10:23:20 [Ashok]
HT: Depends on whether you use "image" or "object".
10:23:51 [Ashok]
Noah: The document says the terminology is subtle even for experts
10:24:12 [Ashok]
... so we need to explain
10:24:24 [Ashok]
... we ask legal community what would help them
10:25:26 [Ashok]
Discussion of "fair use"
10:26:45 [Ashok]
Music students must buy the music. For plays they must rent a copy of the play
10:27:04 [masinter]
10:27:33 [Ashok]
Yves: Understanding of free speech is different in different countries
10:28:03 [Ashok]
Noah: Discusses material in the cache
10:29:25 [Ashok]
Tim: A link can be seen as aiding and abetting
10:29:46 [Ashok]
... here is where you can find all your favorite TV series
10:29:54 [masinter]
I thought we had gone down the road that the TAG would document common practice and terminology, rather than documenting what should or shouldn't be legal or even legal practice
10:30:01 [masinter]
10:30:17 [jar]
10:30:32 [jar]
q+ jar to expectations
10:31:23 [Ashok]
Noah: Discusses nature of links ...
10:31:39 [masinter]
I thought we were going to look at "expert witness" contributions to copyright cases in order to summarize those as community consensus about terminology and concepts
10:31:52 [Ashok]
... web depends on linking and network effects
10:32:30 [masinter]
i don't want to make recommendations about what kinds of laws should be passed
10:32:46 [Ashok]
Noah: Restricting linking makes the Web a less useful place
10:33:43 [Ashok]
Larry: We should restrict ourselves to factual technical discussion
10:34:24 [Ashok]
... need expert testimony on copyright cases that is representative of community consensus
10:35:28 [Ashok]
Noah: Value of web comes from kaing information resources available to others
10:36:01 [Ashok]
10:36:11 [noah]
10:36:18 [noah]
ack next
10:36:19 [Ashok]
Larry: We should not try and assess value
10:36:20 [noah]
ack next
10:36:21 [Zakim]
jar, you wanted to expectations
10:38:13 [masinter]
or at least separate this into two documents: (a) technical terminology and use cases, for community consensus and Recommendation status (b) a policy document which represents what the TAG would like the W3C to advocate, as a TAG finding
10:38:15 [Ashok]
jar: We are talking about technical aspects of web ...
10:38:23 [masinter]
q+ to advocate two documents
10:38:32 [Ashok]
... what are the expectations? How will people use these links
10:39:00 [Ashok]
... if you see a link you should be able to follow it
10:39:17 [Ashok]
... do you have to read and understand the surrounding text?
10:39:49 [noah]
ack next
10:39:51 [Zakim]
masinter, you wanted to advocate two documents
10:39:55 [Ashok]
DKA: Could you send the editors some guidance
10:40:20 [Ashok]
Larry: Separate policy and technology ... two documents
10:40:57 [Ashok]
... Get community consensus on the technical document
10:41:17 [Ashok]
DKA: Not sure we need the policy document
10:41:33 [masinter]
encourage you to keep policy advocacy section separate
10:42:57 [Ashok]
Noah: We should not say much about policy ... stress the archhitectural/technical aspects
10:44:36 [Ashok]
10:44:58 [noah]
Noah: what I actually said was that there's a middle ground between pure technology and policy, and that's to explain a bit about how the Web is used, and where they get value from it. That informs people who set policy, so they have the opportunity to support such uses, and to avoid inadvertently breaking things people value.
10:45:12 [noah]
AM: I'd go further: I think we need to advocate policy.
10:45:25 [Ashok]
Tim: Resaonable to point out the importance of things. Not waht laws should be written.
10:45:29 [noah]
s/they get/people get
10:45:31 [noah]
s/they get/people get/
10:45:48 [Ashok]
... We can point out the value of things
10:47:14 [noah]
10:47:16 [Ashok]
Tim: I can see contries making it illegal to supply links to bomb-making material, etc.
10:47:40 [Ashok]
... what got us going was websites that say "do not link to this?"
10:48:18 [Ashok]
DKA: Should not have legal standing to say "You cannot link to this website."
10:48:50 [noah]
From deep linking finding:
10:48:53 [noah]
"The Web is at the risk of damage. The hypertext architecture of the Web has brought substantial benefits to the world at large. The onset of legislation and litigation based on confusion between identification and access has the potential to impair the future development of the Web."
10:49:21 [Ashok]
jar: Depends on whether a contract has been made and whether it can be enforced.
10:49:41 [Ashok]
HT: Linking is like printing in a paper
10:50:15 [Ashok]
Noah: Link is a capability for retrieving the material
10:50:42 [Ashok]
Noah: We have published a Deep Linking finding
10:51:10 [Ashok]
... we have already made a policy statement
10:52:03 [Ashok]
Noah: Don't prohibit linking, put access controls if you want to restrict linking. We say that in the finding.
10:53:16 [Ashok]
jar: Terms of use should not be interpreted as entering into a contract
10:54:22 [Ashok]
Noah: I wonder if there is a point to be made about fragment identifiers ... can make you miss the terms of use
10:55:02 [Ashok]
... if you link, you could like to fragments of a page
10:55:40 [noah]
NM: Right, we should point out that fragment identifiers, for good reasons, can cause a user following a link to wind up in the middle of a page or work, which means material like terms of use at the top or bottom might not be seen.
10:55:48 [Ashok]
DKA: Is there legal precedent?
10:55:58 [noah]
NM: We should show use cases of where fragment references are valuable.
10:56:18 [Ashok]
Tim: When I sent messages to the bank I got terms of use at the bottom of the page.
10:56:46 [masinter]
What will be helpful to the community? How would a TAG policy statement have effect? Who would refer to it?
10:57:06 [masinter]
please be careful about 'prevention' vs 'establish consequences'
10:58:59 [Ashok]
DKA: Jonathan can you provide text that further elaborates the terms of use situation.
10:59:09 [jar]
10:59:35 [timbl]
Tim: Their messages sent "by messaging with the sender you accept the sender's terms which are on the web here and may change at any time". I added a similar disclaimer to my own messages to them and so by that measure they would be bound my terms which are on the web and may change at any time.
10:59:46 [noah]
DKA: Jeni and I will meet first week of October to collaborate
10:59:57 [Yves]
on the same subject as Tim: having an HTTP header on get DoNotLog: yes, and a link to term of services "by responding to this http request, you agree not to log this interaction"
11:00:29 [Ashok]
DKA: Jeni and I will meet first week of October to discuss further work on the document. We can discuss at TPAC.
11:01:55 [Ashok]
DKA: We could have a BOF at TPAC to discuss
11:02:05 [Yves]
which should as difficult to defend as "do not link" ToS
11:02:49 [Ashok]
Larry: We could use this as a away to bring in more of the community
11:03:14 [Ashok]
... W3C management could use this to attract community interest
11:04:15 [Ashok]
Larry: Community group could be created around this topic
11:05:06 [masinter]
11:05:15 [Ashok]
Noah: How about inviting Pam Samuelson to this session?
11:06:25 [Ashok]
HT: Her article from 10 years ago is what I recommend people read to understand Copyright on the Web
11:06:39 [noah]
ACTION: Appelquist to propose TPAC breakout on copyright and linking Due: 2011-09-27
11:06:40 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-604 - Propose TPAC breakout on copyright and linking Due: 2011-09-27 [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2011-09-21].
11:06:51 [noah]
11:06:51 [trackbot]
ACTION-541 -- Jeni Tennison to helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about (deep-)linking etc. -- due 2011-07-26 -- OPEN
11:06:51 [trackbot]
11:07:34 [noah]
ACTION-541 Due 2011-10-11
11:07:34 [trackbot]
ACTION-541 Helped by DKA to produce a first draft of terminology about (deep-)linking etc. due date now 2011-10-11
11:08:17 [noah]
11:12:53 [Ashok]
rrsagent, pointer
11:12:53 [RRSAgent]
12:14:22 [plinss_]
plinss_ has joined #tagmem
12:20:29 [jar]
jar has joined #tagmem
12:24:40 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #tagmem
12:33:13 [timbl]
very cool
12:33:56 [masinter]
masinter has joined #tagmem
12:36:46 [masinter]
12:36:46 [trackbot]
ACTION-478 -- Jonathan Rees to prepare a second draft of a finding on persistence of references, to be based on decision tree from Oct. 2010 F2F -- due 2011-12-06 -- OPEN
12:36:46 [trackbot]
12:38:16 [timbl]
scribenick: timbl
12:38:21 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
12:38:25 [timbl]
topic: Persistence
12:39:27 [noah]
scribenick: timbl
12:39:34 [masinter]
my thought lately has been that it's really important to be more precise about what you want to be 'persistent'
12:40:19 [timbl]
jar: We know persistence is primarily a social question, not really a techniucal one. To get it you need lots of copies or
12:40:32 [timbl]
... else a trustworthy institution.
12:41:18 [timbl]
... there is no way to test for it: it is a lot about whether someone else believes that the a document is persistent enough for their purposes.
12:42:21 [timbl]
... Who do you know, who do you trust? I have seen many policy sttaments by jounals saying they do not accept HTTP URIs as references. Some accept them only from for example.
12:42:27 [masinter]
a "confidence" game in both sense of the word
12:42:53 [DKA]
DKA has joined #tagmem
12:43:22 [timbl]
... the right document about persirtent URIs has ot realy been written yet.
12:44:03 [timbl]
... A lot of people have been puzzled by this, and there have been a lot of analyses. People grok the social nature of the issue.
12:44:46 [timbl]
... Give that we are the TAG, and that in fact the perstence of a dereference is Somebody Else's Problem, should we have anything to say about it?
12:45:02 [noah]
Larry: I think Jonathan's mention of "persistent actionability of a reference" is pretty close to the answer to your challenge about what is persistent
12:45:15 [noah] far as it goes
12:45:50 [masinter]
noah: i think it's leaving out the endpoint
12:46:01 [timbl]
HT: There was a crucial point when the DOI people realized that "actionable" URIs (ie dereferencable, i.e. HTTP) were a good idea.
12:46:14 [masinter]
actionable URI as a reference to _what_ ?
12:46:14 [noah]
You mean 'endpoint' as in endpoint of a connection, or something more like end state in some sense.
12:46:16 [timbl]
jar: There is not a big audience for this document.
12:46:29 [noah]
I infer, e.g., reference to some published work.
12:46:51 [masinter]
is the work allowed to change, or do you mean the exact representation?
12:47:22 [timbl]
... Some people just use DOIs. Some apply to be DOI registrars.
12:47:55 [noah]
I assume that whoever establishes the reference string answers that question, but presumably making a reference to an "exact representation" needs to be an option when that's what you intend.
12:48:30 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem
12:48:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tagmem
12:48:50 [timbl]
... Crossref has developed with time. The social contract with new members of crossref are now designed to support persistece. If you become a member of crossref, that means crossref has the right to keep th e metadata. They are backing up out-of-organization. (They are a non-profit).
12:49:58 [timbl]
... Orchid and Datasite were not forced to use DOIs, they are using them because the social contract works for them, and becoming registrars.
12:50:16 [jar]
12:50:42 [timbl]
masinter: Does the persistence of the DOI depend on these orgs -- or is the DIO in the ocumnet itself?
12:50:57 [timbl]
jar: Normally it is in the document, ut that isnot a requirement.
12:51:25 [masinter]
12:51:41 [masinter]
s/the ocumnet/the document/
12:54:05 [masinter]
q+ to remind about (deployed) xmp.did / xmp.iid URIs
12:54:13 [timbl]
jar: The common practice is to publish in the web the DOI hyperlinked to the HTTP URI.
12:54:29 [timbl]
tim: Nice compromise.
12:55:25 [timbl]
jar : the funny thing is that they are not worried about the domain name dying - they have this redundant form n the DOI itself.
12:55:40 [noah]
NM: I still find <a href="urn:...blah blah">http://...some link to what you meant</a> seems troublesome. Maybe because analgous techniques are used maliciously in phishing attacks
12:56:22 [noah]
NM: I think users mostly want to trust that when the link text appears to be an absolute URI, then the link should be to the same URI. Not a disaster, but somewhat troubling.
12:56:32 [timbl]
jar: Then and things liek it are another story. They could make effort tohang onto the domain name. There are persistent identifiers for for example dated tech reports.
12:56:59 [Ashok]
12:57:54 [timbl]
Tim: What about new top-level domains with differet properties, where you can buy forever a domain?
12:58:59 [timbl]
jar: There is an important function web(r,u) as to whether r is a valid representation for u. If a proxy is in the way, ow do I know this functions till works? well, HTTP-bis has a pretty good story.
13:00:40 [timbl]
jar: Now URN specs ofetn discuss how you can deref them.
13:00:48 [timbl]
... They are often wrong in my view.
13:02:31 [timbl]
... What you want to say is that the only way to determine which , say IETF RFC, is actualy a valid one., by going to those in charge who have the definitive say.
13:03:31 [timbl]
jar: As to the TLD idea, I'm npt sure there is a demand for it.
13:04:58 [timbl]
... note that's persistent policy is still in draft form.
13:08:08 [timbl]
larry: For persistent refefences, one way is to embed GUIDs withing hte object itself.
13:08:50 [timbl]
... Most PDFs ahve two, a document id and an instance ID (whcih changes any tie the doc is edited).
13:09:33 [timbl]
... The resoltion service is you searc on Google, and it works. It reuires Google instead of a custom service.
13:10:11 [timbl]
Noah: There are wrap date issues with GUIDs in many implementations/
13:10:52 [timbl]
jar: There is a urn:guid: scheme being discussed.
13:11:01 [timbl]
Tim: What about uuid: scheme?
13:11:48 [masinter]
xmp.iid and xmp.did differ from uuid: in that there's a specific semantics
13:12:58 [timbl]
jar: The curation community seems to be going in that direction, and there is wih Tom Baker for example there is work with persistence for ontologies.
13:14:09 [timbl]
... The typically take copies of ontologies they use in RDF.
13:15:40 [timbl]
jar: I have also been tinking of PIR a lot, the non-profit who run .org
13:15:47 [timbl]
... They could be involved.
13:16:06 [timbl]
... That woudl reduce the number of vulnerabilities by one.
13:16:27 [timbl]
ht: Or we could go to ICANN with PIR's support.
13:19:25 [timbl]
ht: The workshop
13:22:14 [timbl]
ht: There is no acrhive anywhere which has an historical record of domain name ownership -- docmian registras are not required to keep archives.
13:24:39 [masinter]
13:24:55 [masinter]
13:25:48 [JeniT]
13:26:01 [JeniT]
13:26:09 [JeniT]
13:26:48 [timbl]
ht: Maybe in order o get things to happen we need to be alarmist.
13:27:35 [JeniT]
s/ o / to /
13:28:07 [timbl]
... Actually if goes offline, a lot of people get W3C stuff from the waybackmachine.
13:29:31 [timbl]
ht: In fact what we do is all a question of how we estimate the risk.
13:29:57 [timbl]
... We could get people to talk about that at the workhop. I am happy to write up a proposal at hte workshop.
13:30:25 [noah]
FWIW, Wayback Machine copyright policy
13:37:21 [timbl]
ht; Business Coninuity Management -- what happes if a crisis hits --
13:39:18 [timbl]
Tim: Interested to develop system which allows HTTP to failover to p2p, when there is a fail to get B linke dfrom A, ask A to boostratop move to p2p. A bit of protocol is necessary t boostraop this.
13:39:37 [timbl]
peter: I am interested in this, failover fro mhttp to p2p
13:42:08 [JeniT]
s/linke dfrom/linked from/
13:42:17 [JeniT]
13:42:27 [JeniT]
s/t boostraop/to bootstrap/
13:43:12 [timbl]
Tim: Importnat to look separately to short term and long term threats. Short term may be web server breakage, net breakage, crisis damage, or attack by government eg Egypt.
13:43:54 [timbl]
ht: Log term, orgs amy be gone. Short term, they are around but can't do their jobs.
13:44:04 [JeniT]
13:44:19 [JeniT]
13:44:22 [JeniT]
13:52:42 [ht]
ht has joined #tagmem
13:53:00 [timbl]
[Discussion of workshop]
13:53:21 [timbl]
[Discussion of product page]
13:55:29 [masinter]
i think this is a lot less important for the TAG to work on than MIME and the web
13:55:49 [ht]
.RESOLVED: The TAG agrees to endorse a workshop proposal on domain persistence for IDCC11 on 4 or 8 December. This probably means no more than that the workshop publicity would include some form of attribution to the TAG
13:56:43 [masinter]
I don't endorse a workshop proposal from the TAG because it doesn't raise above my threshold for TAG priorities
13:58:04 [masinter]
and i see no evidence of a community that wants to come to W3C
13:58:42 [noah]
. RESOLVED: The TAG agrees to endorse a workshop proposal on domain persistence for IDCC11 on 4 or 8 December. This probably means no more than that the workshop publicity would include some form of attribution to the TAG. This is contingent on suitable approval from and coordination with W3C staff.
14:00:11 [masinter]
i'm not sure what 'endorse' means if it has no commitment at all for any follow-on work
14:01:44 [masinter]
i wouldn't mind a proposal for a breakout session at TPAC, on the other hand
14:01:58 [masinter]
I don't mind a proposal for a breakout session at TPAC, on the other hand
14:02:11 [masinter]
I don't mind a breakout session at TPAC, on the other hand
14:02:23 [DKA]
+1 on noah's proposed resolution.
14:05:21 [timbl]
Votes: 7 yes, 1 no, 1 abstain.
14:05:26 [noah]
Chair rules no consensus.
14:05:34 [noah]
Larry says OK to do it anyway.
14:05:44 [timbl]
Chiar rules no consensus, but Larry allows going forward.
14:08:29 [noah]
ACTION: To talk to Ian about whether a 15 min plenary presentation on TAG status would be appropriate at TPAC.
14:08:29 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - To
14:08:39 [noah]
ACTION: Noah to talk to Ian about whether a 15 min plenary presentation on TAG status would be appropriate at TPAC.
14:08:39 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-605 - Talk to Ian about whether a 15 min plenary presentation on TAG status would be appropriate at TPAC. [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-09-21].
14:30:29 [DKA]
DKA has joined #tagmem
14:33:04 [timbl]
Topic: Unicode Normalization
14:33:17 [noah]
14:33:17 [timbl]
Noag: This started with an emil from Addison Philiips (sp?)
14:33:53 [timbl]
Noah: I missed this, then Peter asked about it in July.. We had a discusssion on Sept 1.
14:34:11 [timbl]
We assigned a couple of actions, one for me to follow up with Addison.
14:34:25 [noah]
14:34:25 [trackbot]
ACTION-592 -- Peter Linss to draft possible TAG position statement on Unicode, and alert Addison Phillips of our intention to attempt to get agreement starting in October after the F2F -- due 2011-09-08 -- OPEN
14:34:25 [trackbot]
14:34:27 [timbl]
See also ACTION-592 of Peter
14:34:48 [timbl]
Peter: Started, not ready.
14:34:57 [noah]
14:34:57 [trackbot]
ACTION-590 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up with Addison Phillips on Unicode normalization -- due 2011-08-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:34:57 [trackbot]
14:35:07 [noah]
close ACTION-590
14:35:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-590 Follow up with Addison Phillips on Unicode normalization closed
14:35:50 [timbl]
Ashok: Could you pleas recap the problem?
14:36:29 [timbl]
Peter: Unicode has many ways of representing the same thing. These look identical on the screen. Eg accented character vs accent and charcaeter.
14:36:56 [timbl]
The result is users are confused, as the visible glyphs are identical.
14:37:21 [timbl]
This i snot a problem if your Unicode is normalized. There are normalization forms.
14:38:21 [timbl]
There are though some ways things can hav multiple encodeings (eg vietnames emultiple accents( which are not tackled by thhose normalizarions algorithms.
14:38:40 [timbl]
Then you have JS APIs for these things, accessing using say class ames etc
14:39:24 [timbl]
Surprisinglly this has nto been a proble yet. Maybe because people just give up using non-ascii.
14:39:37 [masinter]
Is it the case that Vietnamese doesn't normalize? I don't think that's what Peter said
14:39:48 [timbl]
The I18n group have been pushing formore people to pay more attention oth thi sproblem.
14:40:10 [timbl]
Within CSS group, much pushback e.g. from implementers, as therer are perfoamce costs.
14:40:30 [timbl]
jar: Why do peope thinks it ok to not do his?
14:40:52 [timbl]
peter: Because they haven't seen the problem ye. Bu absence of evidence is not evidnce of absence.
14:41:21 [timbl]
Noah: do we have a community of mostly people working in ASCII -- like the TAG?
14:41:53 [timbl]
Maybe we need non-engligh speaking input.
14:42:01 [timbl]
jar; This can't just be a web issue.
14:42:59 [timbl]
Larry: I worked on a system which had this problem. You can use non-ascii names without normalization.
14:43:56 [timbl]
Noah: Eg someone edits a style sheet in an editor.
14:45:19 [timbl]
masinter: Do any apps normalize
14:45:21 [timbl]
14:46:07 [timbl]
masinter: The "visual cognates" problem is a lot more tha this -- also o and 0, l and 1 for example.
14:46:45 [jar]
plinss: Typos are beyond our control
14:47:04 [jar]
plinss: Meta-question - should tag be involved at all?
14:48:15 [jar]
"Programs should always compare canonical-equivalent Unicode strings as equal"
14:49:17 [timbl]
Ashok: Call Martin Davis, of Unicode fame.
14:49:56 [Ashok]
14:50:32 [timbl]
masinter: The 118n group have been askign people to tke this up with no effect, and have asked the TAG to push.
14:52:43 [timbl]
peter: Questions abound as to whether to check just at input time, or what. There are illegal strings, what happens if you chop a string between a character and its accent then recombine it?
14:53:02 [masinter] is Candidate rec from 2004, hasn't progressed?
14:53:26 [masinter] is Working Draft, from 2005
14:53:41 [timbl]
Yves: The language all have unicode normalization in their runtime.
14:54:26 [timbl]
ht: The XML spec I just checked does not mention normaization at all, except in a XML name section, not normative, it says use normal form 3.
14:55:48 [ht]
The XML spec has the following non-normative guidance on XML names: "Characters in names should be expressed using Normalization Form C as defined in [UnicodeNormal]."
14:56:30 [timbl]
ht: In the charcter model spec, there was no one asking for it, so no one paid attention to it.
14:57:02 [timbl]
masinter: ther is a WD dates 2004, and normalization WD dated 2005
14:57:31 [plinss_]
14:57:37 [masinter]
14:58:39 [timbl]
ht: [reads] ... characters with muliple possible representatioins are compared code point by code pont.
14:59:05 [masinter]
15:00:22 [masinter]
I think we should find that the I18N group should bring charmod-norm to rec, and address this problem by removing theory that doesn't correspond to practice
15:00:53 [ht]
XML requires that processors _not_ normalize when comparing e.g. start and end tags ( "Two strings or names being compared [*match* if they] are identical. Characters with multiple possible representations in ISO/IEC 10646 (e.g. characters with both precomposed and base+diacritic forms) match only if they have the same representation in both strings."
15:01:29 [noah]
TBL: The TAG is at it's best when helping multiple groups. This is a slightly unusual case in which the i18n group themselves is in a way TAG-like in their role. I think we can support >them< in resolving this, but not clear we should be getting in at the level of detailed technical analysis.
15:03:33 [noah]
TBL: I think one could imagine a string-compare-xxxx, so not do it in each API. Do not ask each subsystem to it.
15:03:53 [noah]
NM: What about CSS?
15:04:19 [masinter]
reading, it actually looks like this recommends exact string match. That is, why is there a problem?
15:04:49 [noah]
TBL: (scribe still struggling)
15:04:56 [ht]
Don't change the data models
15:05:05 [ht]
Change the way equality is tested for
15:05:56 [noah]
TBL: What I'm suggesting is doing the smart check at comparison time.
15:06:49 [jar]
I thought we were asked to review ?
15:07:41 [noah]
AM: This is a bigger problem due to the IRI situation. It behooves us to think about this.
15:07:49 [timbl]
Tim: Clearly if yo just introduce canonicalization into one subsystem, then things break: for example, if th CSS system does and the XML DOM doesn't then the match between CSS and XML will fail wher it used to work. Insteda, good to introduce a compare function which compares blind to differences in encoding of accents. This will helkp and will not cause the same damage -- very rare damage.
15:08:16 [timbl]
If I was building a system from scratch, I would probably canonicalize on input.
15:08:29 [ht]
I read the above from charmod-norm as at variance with TimBL's suggestion: " In accordance with section 3 Normalization, this step [normalization] must be performed by the _producers_ of the strings to be compared." [emphasis added]
15:08:48 [ht]
q+ to ask about charmod-norm draft quoted above
15:08:54 [timbl]
But all this hodulebr architected by the i18n group not the TAG.
15:09:16 [timbl]
Yves: We could ask the i18n group why there advice did not take off.
15:09:17 [jar]
"we would like to request that TAG schedule time in about four weeks to review I18N WG's proposed recommendations concerning Unicode Normalization" - Addison to www-tag on 6/29
15:09:48 [timbl]
Peter: They have talked to CSS group. There are disagreements within the CSS group.
15:10:12 [timbl]
Deal with it/Don't deal with it/worry about performance
15:11:35 [timbl]
jar: It in our charter to get involved.
15:13:28 [timbl]
jar: If this is a disagreement between working groups, it is in our charter. It needs to be more clearly laid out -- thjat os it seems in progress.
15:13:36 [masinter]
I don't understand why they have 2004 working draft with no progress.... where are the heartbeats documents, for example?
15:13:46 [timbl]
Peter: I volunteer to champion this within the TAG.
15:14:24 [timbl]
Jar: I'd like to ask various outside people for their opinion.
15:14:49 [timbl]
Peter: I'm not an expert on the unicode side.
15:16:44 [masinter]
their working draft disagrees with the wiki page, but without justification for why the change
15:17:27 [jar]
15:18:22 [masinter]
15:20:14 [timbl]
If the i18n stuff were rec track, then thei CR phase would involve egtting eth CSS people etc to implement it, maybe.
15:20:25 [timbl]
s/If/Noah: If/
15:21:12 [timbl]
masinter: It may be that the i18n group needs to think about the breadth of applicability of thsi work.
15:22:07 [jar]
i18n core charter seems to be
15:22:26 [timbl]
Noah: As anindividual TAG member, I m conflicted. resonating, tim sayinthis is i18n charter, and jar syin this is in our charter, and larry sayung not clear that he i18n wg is using the w3c process nromally.
15:22:35 [masinter]
that is, the distinction between internationalization for presentation forms and protocol elements, and that the broad charter of I18N applies to presentation forms, and that they might want to be more modest in trying to internationalize protocol elements, against other priorities of reliability, implementation, performance
15:22:48 [timbl]
.. either thei rown material, and in their approcach to CSS.
15:23:59 [timbl]
... We do think the TAG doesn't scale -- normally there are processes by which WGs give each other a heads up of direction, and I don't think the TAG should be used as a short cut.
15:25:20 [DKA]
DKA has joined #tagmem
15:25:25 [timbl]
Noah: We have no consensus. Propose: the TAG is not convinced or ready to commit to a deep dive. We would like to do a small 4-8 week exercise -- mayeb a telcon with i18n -- and ask the question again after that time.
15:26:14 [timbl]
jar: Not happy. This is no a very big thing. We can't do thinsg until they have done thei homework,. We can't help now -- they need to get sorted out.
15:28:56 [jar]
not a big thing *yet*. what I mean is that there's not much for us to do until it's better prepared for us so that we can help efficiently… seems like a jumble to me.
15:30:05 [noah]
15:30:05 [trackbot]
ACTION-592 -- Peter Linss to draft possible TAG position statement on Unicode, and alert Addison Phillips of our intention to attempt to get agreement starting in October after the F2F -- due 2011-09-08 -- OPEN
15:30:05 [trackbot]
15:32:04 [timbl]
jar: First steo should be they provide a odcument for us to go from
15:33:09 [jar]
i'd like an enumerated set of issues and options, ini writing, as prep for a telcon
15:33:16 [jar]
15:35:30 [jar]
a brief should ideally summarize the opposing views
15:38:11 [noah]
ACTION: plinss to invite I18N and other concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization
15:38:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-606 - Invite I18N and other concerned groups to provide written technical input as prep to discussion with the TAG regarding unicode normalization [on Peter Linss - due 2011-09-21].
15:40:48 [timbl]
ht: The wiki is actually not consistent with what it recommends -- do you or do you not compare canonicaliation-aware?
15:41:54 [timbl]
topic: Minimization
15:42:04 [noah]
15:42:04 [trackbot]
ACTION-590 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up with Addison Phillips on Unicode normalization -- due 2011-08-30 -- CLOSED
15:42:04 [trackbot]
15:43:10 [timbl]
Noah: Commit or cancel?
15:43:45 [timbl]
we have a commitment to have a finding in 1 month, hoped to have an initial draft in July.
15:43:50 [timbl]
Worried about timing.
15:44:15 [timbl]
DanA said he thought he could get it together in time for TPAc and it willb e contentious.
15:44:30 [timbl]
s/willb e/will be/
15:46:14 [timbl]
DanA; This has alwasy been a really small thing anyway. The device API folks are happy they say to implement it, and we are in some cases alreday doing it -- but we would liek to se more examples of where ti has been a good approach applied in the wild.
15:46:30 [timbl]
Where has this been applied and resulted in better privacy?
15:46:44 [timbl]
jar: (But this is a basic tennant of capability design!)
15:47:38 [timbl]
dka: We have had stron geolocation wg partcipation since it begain, and upoming will be civc address objects, as an enhancement to geo lat long, (street/city/region/country etc).
15:47:58 [timbl]
... If tyou apply thi s design, you should be able to just ask for say th e state.
15:48:20 [noah]
15:48:24 [masinter]
15:48:29 [masinter]
15:48:33 [timbl]
.. But implementers Google, Moz in geo wg, and Opera push back.
15:48:33 [jar]
15:48:35 [Ashok]
15:48:43 [noah]
q- ht
15:49:17 [timbl]
"We did privacy in geopriv, a can of words .. " They never dealt with minimization -- if users and edevs are not asking for this, then why do it... OWTTE.
15:55:33 [noah]
ack next
15:56:28 [noah]
ack next
15:59:38 [timbl]
In Lyon last year I sat in on the geo location group
16:00:18 [timbl]
.. supported thei r approach to get out the document, an dnot be drawn to mcuh into the privacy issue.
16:00:47 [masinter]
I think we have some responsibility to push on policy-based requirements
16:01:59 [timbl]
masinter: I am trying to understand the responability of the TAG .. relationship with the privacy stuff going on ... you giot you said push back from implementers, but this in not necessariy a maret-based requirement, not a policty-based one.
16:02:46 [timbl]
ccessibility and princacy fit into reas where there may be other forces beyond the ones the product manager immediately sees, whcih can'y be justofied on the basis that this is what the user s are demanding.
16:03:26 [timbl]
Noah: I don't have a kind warm feeling about that geopriv history at the moment.
16:03:38 [timbl]
Ashok: I don't thin you can find good use cases.
16:04:03 [masinter]
i think i understand some of the geopriv / geolocation history
16:04:08 [timbl]
DKA: I cand find lots of academics who will talk about tis but I need people in the real world, selling in hte market
16:04:57 [timbl]
Noah: If I can do a getCity, getState() call etc, thats's oen thing ... i cn also do a different call getAddress() whic hmay return blanks.
16:05:02 [masinter]
i think it's an API design concern that has only a little bit to do with access control
16:05:13 [timbl]
dka: That is not the questin -- this i not about access control.
16:06:11 [masinter]
the shape of the API treats 'granularity' an input parameter, and where the result has options for returning multiple granularity
16:06:43 [masinter]
i'm disagreeing with Noah that 'access control' is the right way to approach this problem
16:06:59 [timbl]
Dan: The model we are dealing ith in htis minimization issue, is that it is good for a developer to ask for the minimum data tha they can use, to avoid ahving m mroe private data around than ncessary. It is not about access control by the user.
16:07:11 [noah]
16:07:16 [timbl]
Noah; [stuff about user permisssion access control]
16:07:42 [timbl]
Yves: All users know what an app will access, as it is displayed in big letters. They have seen that.
16:07:44 [masinter]
in fact, what i like about 'data minimization' is that it gets around some of the access control problems
16:07:54 [Ashok]
In access control someone decides who gets to access what ... in this case the user decides what is disclosed about him
16:08:35 [timbl]
... Howver, as the aops use it, there are many possibilities of leaks by which the data can get out. So minimization is interesting to just reduce the likelihood of damage by a leak.
16:09:11 [masinter]
alternative is a separate part of API to 'fuzz' or 'reduce granularity' ... might more be more effective than data minimization
16:09:45 [timbl]
dan: The assumption is that the user should not be given lots of prompts. Minimization as a best practice does not involve prompts.
16:10:40 [masinter]
16:11:03 [timbl]
noah: Two ways of doing this --inspecting the code of an app, or doing it at run time.
16:11:29 [noah]
16:11:32 [noah]
ack next
16:15:09 [timbl]
[discussiono various forms of attak]
16:16:20 [timbl]
larry: You can get teh same effect as minimization by fuzzing the geo data.
16:16:57 [timbl]
dan: This draft supports that sort of approach.
16:17:28 [timbl]
Dan: The document is supposed to just state the arch'l principle, which is why it is good as a TAG doc.
16:17:51 [masinter]
could the privacy activity take this forward without the TAG owning it?
16:17:55 [timbl]
I would hope we would get agreement with the WGs which would be most connected, such as geolocation , for exampel.
16:18:10 [timbl]
larry: What part ofthis could we push onto the princay activity?
16:18:37 [timbl]
dan: I'd like to complete this, and then hopefully have the rivacy group support that document and point to it.
16:19:31 [timbl]
jar: These are not really a spec, just guidelines.
16:19:37 [timbl]
dan: Yes.
16:19:48 [timbl]
... I would like this to be a finding.
16:20:14 [timbl]
Larry: I like it enough that I would like you to make it into something which could be a finding.
16:20:29 [timbl]
jar: It is a design pattern.
16:20:39 [timbl]
tim: I like the "pattern" language.
16:21:02 [jar]
s/a spec, just guidelines/guidelines, just an article/
16:22:06 [timbl]
Noah: Do we know eher ethis fist in the system? It is API mini'n
16:22:20 [timbl]
dan: Actually Data Minimization.
16:25:20 [timbl]
Tim: DO you wanto to extend it to Sensitive Data Minimization in Code ?
16:29:43 [timbl]
Ashok: Would like to publish this as a Note, not a Finding.
16:33:17 [Ashok]
rrsagent, pointer?
16:33:17 [RRSAgent]
17:11:32 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
17:22:15 [noah]
noah has joined #tagmem
18:25:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tagmem