Re: Taxonomy of legal bases

HI Rigo, 

Nice to see similarly conclusions, coming from completely different directions.  

> On 8 Apr 2019, at 21:54, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> Even in the GDPR, the reasonable expectation of privacy, and in this
>> expected context, consent, is 'regular’ or ‘normal types’ of consent.  
>> Consent as a term is a direct reference to social norms and culture, aka
>> the reasonable expectation of privacy.
> 
> Uhhhh, this is mixing more confusion into the cocktail by adding yet another 
> legal institute that may even conflict with the one we have... ;-/

Yes this is a different conversation - e.g. - the applied DPV works, 
>> 
>> A regulator prescribing what consent is defeats the purpose of the law.
> 
> Not my view. We have a legal definition and I can't see why this defeats the 
> purpose of the law. 

Again, towards the point that the Regulation is not defined in a prescriptive manner, and in the context of reasonable expectations, consent is itself a co-regulatory component.  

Its value is inherent in its application. 
> 
>> 
>> - Mark
>> 
>>  PS.   As I am sociologist and very much like the anthropology of consent
>> in society I would refer to addition references and understanding.  There
>> is a lot of history in this topic, I recommend brushing through some of
>> these.
> 
> This is the problem. The knowledge graph is supposed to reflect the legal 
> concept, not the varieties of natural language meanings floating in different 
> cultural areas. Trouble is, law uses natural language. The Mathematicians were 
> smarter and used their own notation, which avoids this kind of 
> misunderstanding. 

Perhaps there are two topics here 1. The knowledge graph and the legal concepts, sufficiently constructed to provides the legal math,  2. The application of this math to address real world problems.  (Social)

I think a lot of what we are doing is knowledge transfer and a bit of fresh thinking.  And to my eye its resembling its own type of notation -  ;-]

> 
> --Rigo