Re: issue or confused found in the RDF/ontology

Hello All,

I also have another question about DPV 1.0.

Should 'date of birth' be created as a sub-class?
It seems like it could be subclasses of dpv:Age
<https://www.w3.org/ns/dpv#dpv:Age>, dpv:HealthRecord
<https://www.w3.org/ns/dpv#dpv:HealthRecord>, dpv:LifeHistory
<https://www.w3.org/ns/dpv#dpv:LifeHistory>.

Date of birth seems like something that should be included standard for the
vocabulary.

Thanks,
Kalvin


On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 8:30 AM Piero Bonatti <pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it>
wrote:

> Hallo Harsh and Xiaohu,
>
> concerning historical data, may I support the view expressed in the
> mentioned chat, that is:
>
> On 13/12/19 13:42, Harshvardhan J. Pandit wrote:
> > If one wants to express health data
>
> [or any other data category]
>
> > as also historial data, they can
> > subclass it
> >
> > e.g. HealthHistory rdfs:subClassOf HealthData, HistoricalData.
>
> The same approach would apply, by analogy, to "AnonymizedData" (a useful
> term that IMHO is currently missing in the vocabulary).  Note that
> "anonymized" is not the same as "anonymous", since all the known
> anonymization methods give only probabilistic guarantees of
> non-identification, therefore they do not imply that the result of
> anonymization is not "personal data" in the sense of the GDPR.
> Anonymized data should be regarded as somewhere in between pseudonymous
> and anonymous.
>
> OWL2 and most of its profiles (including the logic PL adopted by
> special) support also an alternative formulation for expressing the
> intersection of two classes on the fly, without adding terms to the
> ontology, for example:
>
> ObjectIntersectionOf( HealthData HistoricalData )
> ObjectIntersectionOf( HealthData AnonymizedData )
>
> In the aforementioned languages, vocabularies need not be extended with
> all the intersection of the above form, preventing class proliferation
> in the vocabulary.
>
> regards,
> Piero
>
>