Re: some more comments on the paper drtaft and spec

isn't it just personal preference though?while it certainly makes sense to use sub classes for more generic purposes, I wouldn't create a sub class for each and every purpose..just my 2 cents,simon
-------- Original message --------From: apollere <apollere@wu.ac.at> Date: 25/07/2019  07:00  (GMT+01:00) To: public-dpvcg@w3.org Subject: some more comments on the paper drtaft and spec While Harsh and myself are working on the paper draft for ODBASE (again, feel free to also comment/help),I was reading over the spec text for personal data categories again, where it says:"We therefore suggest to declare the specific context as an instance of one or several dpv:Purpose categories and to always declare the specific purpose with a human readable description (e.g., by using rdfs:label and rdfs:comment)."I think this is wrong, because it is not an instance, but a subclass. I reformulated that whole paragraph in the paper draft (but not yet in the spec):"DPV provides a list of suggested purposes which may be extendedas shown in Listing ~\ref{lst:purpose-example} by subclassing existing purposes to create more specific ones: as regulations such as the GDPR generally require a specific purpose to be declared in an understandable manner, we suggest to such declare specific purposes as subclasses of one or several \texttt{dpv:Purpose} categories and to always declare the specific purpose with a human readable description (e.g., by using \texttt{rdfs:label} and \texttt{rdfs:comment})."This should also be changed in the spec.Likewise, the example in Listing 2 (Example 2 in the spec) uses instantiation instead of subclassing...:SomePurpose a dpv:Purpose ;       rdfs:label “Some Purpose” ;       dpv:hasSector dpv-nace:M72 .Isn't that also an error and should be subclassing?Axel