- From: Eva Schlehahn <uld67@datenschutzzentrum.de>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:32:13 +0200
- To: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>, me@harshp.com
- Cc: public-dpvcg@w3.org
Hi Simon, many things for sharing some insight on ODRL with us. I have a (hopefully not too embarassing/annoying) question, though since I do not having any technology backoground: When you wrote that ODRL does not define how consent has to "look like", i.e., what information ex:Consent has to contain, does this refer only to the content of the consent agreement, i.e. what was 'consented to', or does this even cover the status of consent? As a person coming in with a legal perspective, I think it could be desirable to capture the status of consent to enable reviewing its validness, e.g. in an audit. It appreas thinkable to me to have consent status labels like 'given' (if yes, specific whether explicit or implicit), 'pending / withheld', 'withdrawn', 'referring to the personal data of a minor', 'referring to the personal data of a disabled person in need of specific accessibility provisions to manage consent' or the like. Just as some starting thoughts, triggered by what the GDPR expresses in terms of possible consent situations. Therefore, it would be great if you could give you opinion on whether ODRL has the capability of expressing this or whether other methods may be more suitable. :) Thanks, greetings from Kiel and a great weekend to everyone! 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 17.08.2018 um 14:19 schrieb Simon Steyskal: > Hi! > > (Chiming in on the ODRL part of the conversation) > >> However, to date, I am not aware of any work attempting to model >> consent using ODRL (that has published their approach). > > ODRL allows you to define so-called Privacy policies [1]: "A Policy > that expresses a Rule over an Asset containing personal information." > which would contain permissions & prohibitions tied to your PI. > For example, such a policy could in ODRL be expressed like this: > > <http://example.com/policy:42> > a odrl:Privacy ; > odrl:permission [ > a odrl:Permission ; > odrl:target ex:asset_9898 ; > odrl:action odrl:reproduce ; > odrl:assigner ex:Alice ; > odrl:assignee ex:Bob ; > odrl:duty [ > a odrl:Duty ; > odrl:action odrl:obtainConsent ; > odrl:output ex:Consent ; > odrl:consentingParty ex:Alice ; > odrl:consentedParty ex:Bob ; > ] > ] . > > Resembling a permission Alice has granted to Bob for reproducing her > PI (denoted as asset_9898) under the condition that Bob obtains > Alice's consent. > > https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-consentingParty - party to > obtain consent from > https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-consentedParty - party who > obtains the consent > https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-obtainConsent - To obtain > verifiable consent to perform the requested action in relation to the > Asset. > https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-output - specifies the Asset > which is created from the output of the Action. > > However, ODRL does NOT define: > > 1) HOW & WHEN consent has to be obtained, i.e., HOW & WHEN fulfillment > of the duty has to be verified/checked > 2) HOW consent has to "look like", i.e., what information ex:Consent > has to contain > > HTH, simon > > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-Privacy > > --- > DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal > Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna > > www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys > > Am 2018-08-17 09:04, schrieb Eva Schlehahn: >> 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 13:32:47 UTC