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.

Regards,
Harsh


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 
> <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 <mailto: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
> 

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

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