Re: ISSUE-8: How do we describe unions and intersections of purposes, how doe we describe any vs some “sub”purpose

Currently we are using the union and intersection operators of OWL 
(ObjectUnionOf and ObjectIntersectionOf).

they are proving to be useful also for the other policy properties: data 
categories (e.g. Demographic *and* PII, or Location *and* Anonymous), 
processing, storage and recipients.

The hierarchical organization of classes automatically caters for "all 
sub-purposes of..." statements (a purpose includes automatically all of 
its sub-purposes).  In order to select a list of subpurposes we simply 
take their union.  So far this approach has not shown any drawbacks in 
our use cases.

Piero

On 11/12/18 07:49, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 2:53:08 PM CET Data Privacy Vocabularies and
> Controls Community Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> ISSUE-8: How do we describe unions and intersections of purposes, how doe we
>> describe any vs some “sub”purpose
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/issues/8
>>
>> Raised by:
>> On product:
> 
> One of the hopes I had was to have a similar approach as Serena Villata to
> licensing:
> 
> Villata, S. , Gandon, F.
> Licenses compatibility and composition in the web of data
> Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Consuming Linked Data-
> Volume 905 , 2012, 124–135
> 
> Even the law talks about "compatible purposes". This means with Linked data,
> we can perhaps teach the machine to look at compatible purposes. This could
> help the user interface to recommend allowing or denying things and would add
> to the 80/20 approach of just listing the 30 most common purposes.
> 
>   --Rigo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2018 07:04:05 UTC