W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dpvcg@w3.org > July 2019

Re: some more comments on the p

From: simon.steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:13:40 +0200
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>
Cc: apollere <apollere@wu.ac.at>, public-dpvcg@w3.org
Message-ID: <E1hqgNZ-0003Ba-8S@mimas.w3.org>
I have no experience with NACE codes, but replacing specific purposes with ones defined by NACE codes (if that's how it works) seems like a flexible and extendable solution!simon
-------- Original message --------From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at> Date: 25/07/2019  17:46  (GMT+01:00) To: "simon.steyskal" <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> Cc: apollere <apollere@wu.ac.at>, public-dpvcg@w3.org Subject: Re: some more comments on the p Sure, but what do you suggest for changing concretely? Separate vocabularies for the instances that we have jointly elaborated in the F2F workshops?We kind of addresssed this for now with the vocabulary "modules", but I agree we could re-open this in the second draft resort to separate namespaces...Axel--Prof. Dr. Axel PolleresInstitute for Information Business, WU Viennaurl: http://www.polleres.net/¬† twitter: @AxelPolleres> On 25.07.2019, at 17:31, simon.steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote:> > fwiw, I'm heavily against enumerating sets of actions/purposes/etc. (see e.g. ODRL's arbitrary set of actions) and prefer being able to express/model the things that make those actions/purposes/.. different instead..> > so +1 to any means of generalization ;)> > br simon> > -------- Original message --------> From: apollere <apollere@wu.ac.at>> Date: 25/07/2019 07:16 (GMT+01:00)> To: public-dpvcg@w3.org> Subject: Re: some more comments on the p> > Another one:> > As for the purposes, note that the first purpose wr have in our list is > AcademicResearch, but (as the example shows) we could also express this > by restricted to ScientificResearch (using the NACE code....).> Do we really need both? In doubt, I would remove the specific purposes > that are already covered by NACE codes... or add a justification why we > need both.> > Axel> > > On 2019-07-25 07:00, apollere wrote:> > 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 ‚ÄúSome Purpose‚ÄĚ ;> >¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬† dpv:hasSector dpv-nace:M72 .> > > > Isn't that also an error and should be subclassing?> > > > > > > > > > Axel> > 
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2019 16:14:07 UTC

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