- From: Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:57:47 +0100
- To: public-dpvcg@w3.org, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@adaptcentre.ie>
Hi Dave, thanks for the expansive comments. Replies are inline. On 11/12/18 12:56 PM, Dave Lewis wrote: > 1) Will you be aiming to provide definitions of these purposes in the > table? This will be critical to making reasoned decisions about > taxonomical relationship and in spotting non-taxonomical overlaps. A lot > of these terms would already have definitions out there that you may be > able to select from. Would it be worth considering the EU terminology > database for some of these, you can search that easily enough via > https://iate.europa.eu ? It would give the definitions an external > reference which may help acceptance, though often IATA has multiple > definition from different domains, so you need to be selective. Many > references here also have PURLs which helps with maintenance of the > purpose taxonomy The terms/concepts were collected from existing vocabularies. So we would like to collect definitions from their documentation, yes. IATE would be a good place to see how these terms are also defined, but I envision that they would not match because a lot of the terms are defined within the scope of their particular use-cases. Regardless, for our taxonomy, we can take a look at IATE for definitions. > 2) for taxonomy relationships, while clear definitions will help, you > might also consult the EU thesaurus (EURVoc) which would give you > perhaps a way of testing your reasoning against existing taxonomies: see > https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/eu-vocabularies/ > > I wouldn't say this is authoritative (its certainly not compelte), but > it might provide some useful perspectives, especially as it is grounded > in EU legal docs. As far as I'm aware, EuroVoc provides hierarchical/structured taxonomy of concepts which cover a broad area. So it could be that a subset may be applicable. But I don't think these fall under any of the categories we are currently looking at. Then again, I may be wrong about this since I only looked at Eurovoc for EU legislations in the Datathon project. > 3) a few specific comments on the table: > > * "Telemarketing" seems the same as: "Marketing by Phone" > * is there a difference between "OtherContact" and "AnyContact" - > either way it good to have these catch-all purposes, because they > are use a lot and should come in for special attention by future > tools using the taxonomy. Should "AuxPurpose" be in this branch > also? Perhaps also "Custom". Perhaps these should be under an > "InsufficientlyDefined" branch. > * I don't see how "Scientific Purpose" is a subclass of "marketing", > though perhaps it a subclass of "Research". The latter could also > cover 'market research' which might get complicated - I recall that > distinction wasn't enturiely clear in the text of GDPR perhaps. > Also, as my colleagues in the humanties often remind me, there are > many forms of academic research that are not scientific. > * is "Humanitarian" a subclass of "Charity" > * I'm not sure what the distinction of "Solo" analysis is compared to > analysis in general. Is it intended to be part of "profiling" or > "tailoring". The classification clearly needs more work, and sometimes the depicted hierarchy reflects those specified by the source ontology. Regardless, moving forward, we would be looking to resolve both these issues. > 4) Several are stated in a way that I find difficult to equate to a > clear purpose: "Current", "Downloads" Agreed, same as above. > 5) There are others that perhaps need to be rephrased to better evoke > the purpose as they are sort of dangling predicates. You've done a good > job of addressing this for the concepts as phrased in the high level > taxonomy already. So similar detailing is needed here, especially in > relation to the role of data subject, controller and third parties - as > the purpose is often different depending on the role configuration: > > "Arts" performed by who, for the appreciation of whom? > > "Browsing" by whom? > > "Communication" between who? > > "Delivery" by who to whom? > > "Develop" of what, by who, for whom? > > "Feedback" between who? Agreed, purpose text/title needs to be declarative of what it is aiming towards. Something to keep in mind for our taxonomy. > 6) There are another set of purposes that seem to be sectional in > nature, i.e. "Charity", "Education", Gaming"/"Gambling", "Government", > "Health", "Historical", "Journalistic", "Judicial", "Public Interest", > "Research", "State", "Statistics". Is the intention here to have > specific branches of the taxonomy that fall neatly into purposes > identified in GDPR for specific purposes? In which case should they be > taxonomised as such? I see similar issues in the high level taxonomy > where "non-commercial" and "academic" research and grouped under > "research and development" with "commercial research", which could > presumably include market research. > > However in GDPR, these are significant distinctions, so the design > question arises whether these distinctions should be branched nearer the > root of the taxonomy, where it may be more immediately obvious for > answering GDPR related competence questions. There's another set of terms at the bottom of the page in a different section resulting from the discussion yesterday (there's an email about that in the thread) which reflects the more top-level distinction and I think answers this as well. P.S. Rushed replies since it is time for DPVCG meeting call. Regards, -- -- --- Harshvardhan J. Pandit PhD Researcher ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin https://harshp.com/
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2018 14:58:12 UTC