# Re: some more comments on the paper drtaft and spec

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:27:53 +0200
Cc: apollere <apollere@wu.ac.at>, public-dpvcg <public-dpvcg@w3.org>, Piero Bonatti <pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it>, "Javier D. Fernández" <jfergar83@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <BDD1786E-8C5A-4F80-9C89-F3E2AB12AEDE@wu.ac.at>
To: "simon.steyskal" <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
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

> 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
>
> :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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:27:57 UTC