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

Re: some more comments on the paper drtaft and spec

From: Piero Bonatti <pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:14:29 +0200
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>, "simon.steyskal" <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
Cc: apollere <apollere@wu.ac.at>, public-dpvcg <public-dpvcg@w3.org>, Javier D. Fernández <jfergar83@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <378530af-f273-1aab-76ec-71df5c903eb2@unina.it>
Subclassing IMHO is preferrable because it is more general.

It encompasses instances throug singleton classes, when needed (for 
example in SPECIAL we are using this approach for dynamic consent).

Subclassing gives full flexibility and an amazing range of granularity 
choices, including co-existence of orthogonal formalizations.

Best,
Piero

On 25/07/19 17:27, Axel Polleres wrote:
> 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 Sunday, 28 July 2019 10:14:23 UTC

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