W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dpvcg@w3.org > August 2018

Re: Are there any concerns about using ODRL to model Consent?

From: Eva Schlehahn <uld67@datenschutzzentrum.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:04:27 +0200
To: public-dpvcg@w3.org
Message-ID: <dd355338-22be-c9dd-a5e5-e635f836f94d@datenschutzzentrum.de>
Hi Harsh,

knowing the purpose of the processing ahead of time is one of the key 
cornerstones of processing anyway, at least when personal data is 
concerned. You recognized correctly that OWL can help then. Even though 
I have no technology backoground, I got it that this was one of the 
considerations in favor of OWL made in another project I was in. So if 
anyone on this list has experience with ODRL, this would indeed be quite 
useful for a more concrete comparison.

Greetings from Kiel in northern Germany,

Eva

Landesbeauftragte für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein
Holstenstraße 98, 24103 Kiel, Tel. +49 431 988-1200, Fax -1223
mail@datenschutzzentrum.de - https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/
Eva Schlehahn, uld67@datenschutzzentrum.de

Informationen über die Verarbeitung der personenbezogenen Daten durch
die Landesbeauftragte für Datenschutz und zur verschlüsselten
E-Mail-Kommunikation: https://datenschutzzentrum.de/datenschutzerklaerung/

Am 16.08.2018 um 18:52 schrieb Harsh:
> Ah! Thank you Axel.
> So the assumption I make from this is that it is possible to use ODRL, 
> but simpler methods may exist (such as the OWL model). That being 
> said, the work ahead would then be comparing these, and finding their 
> strengths and complexities in terms of modeling consent.
>
> This cleared up a lot of things in my mind regarding your (SPECIAL) 
> choice of using OWL as well. Mainly being that it is specific to the 
> use-case and works quite well if the purposes (w.r.t consent) are 
> known ahead of time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harsh
>
>
> On 16/08/18 16:06, Axel Polleres wrote:
>> </chairhat>
>>
>> Simon might be more into this, we had some work using ODRL for 
>> modeling various Data access policies [1,2]
>> The reason for the choice of a simpler OWL taxonomy and fixed 
>> concepts (rathrer than describing each of these in detail in terms of 
>> more finr-granular ODRL policies, was AFAIR that the use cases in 
>> SPECIAL didn't require it and that with this OWL-based approach 
>> compliance checking can be defined in a relatively straightforward 
>> manner.
>>
>> 1. Simon Steyskal and Axel Polleres. Towards formal semantics for 
>> ODRL policies. In /9th International Web Rule Symposium 
>> (RuleML2015)/, number 9202 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science 
>> (LNCS), pages 360--375, Berlin, Germany, August 2015. Springer. [ 
>> .pdf <http://www.polleres.net/publications/stey-poll-2015RuleML.pdf> ]
>>
>> 2. Simon Steyskal and Axel Polleres. Defining expressive access 
>> policies for linked data using the ODRL ontology 2.0. In /Proceedings 
>> of the SEMANTiCS 2014/, ACM International Conference Proceedings 
>> Series, Leipzig, Germany, September 2014. ACM. Short paper. [ .pdf 
>> <http://www.polleres.net/publications/stey-poll-2014SEMANTiCS.pdf> ]
>>
>> -- 
>> Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres
>> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
>> url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres
>>
>>> On 16.08.2018, at 16:16, Harsh <me@harshp.com 
>>> <mailto:me@harshp.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I wish to know the community's informed opinions about any concerns 
>>> for using ODRL to model Consent for GDPR.
>>>
>>> To elaborate:
>>>
>>> Consent can be modeled as the Data Subject providing permissions for 
>>> purposes or activities for their (specific) personal data. ODRL 
>>> provides a systematic way to model such permissions and prohibitions.
>>>
>>> However, to date, I am not aware of any work attempting to model 
>>> consent using ODRL (that has published their approach). There has 
>>> been use of RDF(S) and OWL [1,2] to model these concepts using terms 
>>> which ODRL (seemingly) already provides.
>>>
>>> Having not worked with ODRL before, it would be valuable to know the 
>>> community's thoughts on using what is essentially a rights language 
>>> to express consent as a legal policy using the vocabulary.
>>>
>>> In terms of DPVCG, this discussion is essentially evaluating an 
>>> existing ontology (ODRL) for a particular use-case (representation 
>>> of given consent).
>>>
>>> [1] Sabrina Kirrane, Javier D. Fernández, Wouter Dullaert, Uros 
>>> Milosevic, Axel Polleres, Piero Bonatti, Rigo Wenning, Olha Drozd 
>>> and Philip Raschke.*A Scalable Consent, Transparency and Compliance 
>>> Architecture.* Proceedings of the Posters and Demos Track of the 
>>> Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2018)
>>>
>>> [2] Kaniz Fatema, Ensar Hadziselimovic, _Harshvardhan J. Pandit_, 
>>> Dave Lewis. *Compliance through Informed Consent: Semantic Based 
>>> Consent Permission and Data Management Model. *Society, Privacy and 
>>> the Semantic Web - Policy and Technology (PrivOn), co-located with 
>>> ISWC 2017
>>> /Society, Privacy and the Semantic Web - Policy and Technology 
>>> (PrivOn), co-located with ISWC 2017/
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ---
>>> Harshvardhan Pandit
>>> PhD Researcher
>>> ADAPT Centre
>>> Trinity College Dublin
>>
>
Received on Friday, 17 August 2018 07:05:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:27:54 UTC