- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:27:53 +0200
- To: "simon.steyskal" <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Cc: apollere <apollere@wu.ac.at>, public-dpvcg <public-dpvcg@w3.org>, Piero Bonatti <pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it>, "Javier D. Fernández" <jfergar83@gmail.com>
FWIW, I think subclassing was so far the mechanism we areed upon (and which is compatible with SPECIAL's compliance checking algorithm as well),so I'd prefer to keep that... Would appreciate Piero's and/or Javier's comments here! Axel Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna url: http://www.polleres.net/ twitter: @AxelPolleres > On 25.07.2019, at 17:24, simon.steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote: > > 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 extended > as 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 > >
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2019 15:28:18 UTC