Re: dpvcg-ACTION-53: Together with harsh, fajar, javier start on a base ontology, suggest a namespace, etc. and start populate the sub-taxonomies, agree on language to model it.

Hello all.

Regarding namespace, we can get a w3id with the prefi dpvcg and host it 
at one of our institutes for the time being while we wait to see whether 
we can have space provided by w3c.
If we need further classification for namespaces:
* dpvcg-psdata (personal data is too long)
* dpvcg-purpose
* dpvcg-process
* dpvcg-sec (security)
* dpvcg-storage

language to model: Ideally for a taxonomy, RDFS is sufficient. However, 
I would propose OWL2 (expressivity discussion needed?) as it allows us 
to further develop axioms and constraints w.r.t to the data model.

However, this can be daunting to adopt/use by non-semweb people (both 
academia and industry), who may only wish to use it as a taxonomy. 
Therefore, I would suggest that at some point we also think about 
usability/adoption of this work.

I would suggest creating different ontologies for each 'thing' (purpose, 
storage, etc.) we are looking at and then merging them as required. This 
would be  easier to develop and maintain (w.r.t. different people acting 
on it).

Regards,
Harsh

On 04/12/18 11:36 AM, Data Privacy Vocabularies and Controls Community 
Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> dpvcg-ACTION-53: Together with harsh, fajar, javier start on a base ontology, suggest a namespace, etc. and start populate the sub-taxonomies, agree on language to model it.
> 
> https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/actions/53
> 
> Assigned to: Axel Polleres

-- 
---
Harshvardhan J. Pandit
PhD Researcher
ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin
https://harshp.com/

Received on Sunday, 9 December 2018 20:11:33 UTC