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

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

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 22:16:59 +0200
Cc: "pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it" <pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it>, "Javier D. Fernández" <jfergar83@gmail.com>, "simon.steyskal" <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>, apollere <apollere@wu.ac.at>, public-dpvcg <public-dpvcg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <40E1E577-0654-4577-8A8A-06F4AC03E107@wu.ac.at>
To: "Harshvardhan J. Pandit" <me@harshp.com>
+1
--
Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres

> On 29.07.2019, at 12:12, Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the clarity of explanations on these.
> 
> Should we go ahead and change the example in the spec to use sub-classing instead, and also add this rationale to why we prefer sub-classes instead of instances?
> 
> - Harsh
> 
> On 29/07/2019 05:45, pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it wrote:
>> Another advantage of purpose *classes* is that it supports data re-use for "compatible purposes", which is allowed by the GDPR. 
>> In general, compatibility can be assessed by lawyers only; with purpose classes, controllers and subjects agree a priori on a set of "similar" purposes, so later data can be re-used  for all such purposes without asking subjects for more consent. 
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>> Oggetto: Re: some more comments on the paper drtaft and spec
>> Da: "Javier D. Fernández" 
>> A: pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it
>> CC: Axel Polleres ,"simon.steyskal" ,apollere ,public-dpvcg 
>> 
>> I agree with Axel and Piero, 
>> 
>> Of course instancing could be another way to do it, but I think we early decided to follow the SPECIAL approach and use subclassing. This allows for flexibility and reasoning strategies as mentioned by Piero. At the end of the day, I can imagine that it would be relatively infrequent to have a named instance of a purpose per se (e.g. it would be the concrete "item", text. etc., reflecting the purpose class), and more common to have a full policy using those classes to compose its components.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Javier   
>> 
>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:13 PM Piero Bonatti <pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it> wrote:
>> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Javier D. Fernández García
>> jfergar83(at)gmail.com
> -- 
> ---
> Harshvardhan Pandit
> PhD Researcher
> ADAPT Centre
> Trinity College Dublin
> 
Received on Monday, 29 July 2019 20:17:29 UTC

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