Re: issue or confused found in the RDF/ontology

Hi Kalvin, DOB (date-of-birth) is certainly a commonly used personal 
data, and we should add it to DPV Personal Data Categories.

IMO, DOB is not a health record - as it does not concern health. 
Similarly, while DOB is indicative of Age, it should not be a subclass 
of Age (DPV currently has Age-range too). It can be a sub class of life 
history to denote an event in life (i.e. birth).

So my proposal would be to add it as a subclass of Historical.


On 19/12/19 3:34 am, Kalvin Eng wrote:
> 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 
> <>, dpv:HealthRecord 
> <>, 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 
> < <>> 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

Harshvardhan J. Pandit
PhD Researcher
ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin

Received on Thursday, 19 December 2019 09:44:08 UTC