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

Request discussion of items in agenda

From: Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 14:01:33 +0100
To: Data Privacy Vocabularies and Controls Community Group <public-dpvcg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <85aa0991-0d10-027d-2e8d-0ab7cfeebd11@harshp.com>
Hello,
I would request following items to be discussed in today's call towards 
completion of the vocabulary:

1. Personal data
- any comments/critique of descriptions?
- any missing provenance information (dates,contributors)
2. Purpose
- was beneficiary discussed and accepted in the F2F or subsiquent calls?
- remove NACE examples and class from purpose taxonomy (see [1])
3. Recipients
- Some terms are added from SPECIAL, but I feel they do not relate to 
the other terms, and are difficult to understand (for me) without 
examples, discussion, or context
- I have added Processor, SubProcessor, and ThirdParty

[1] My reasons for not having NACE classes in Purposes taxonomy:
1) NACE is already defined as a vocabulary by the EU Publications 
Office, we are merely adapting/suggesting to use it
2) We do not have "examples" for any other class, so having them for 
NACE is not consistent/redundant
3) The dpv:nace vocab's only differentiating factor is that it is 
interpreted using rdfs:subClassOf instead of skos (IMHO, the original 
publishers interpretation using SKOS is the "official" one), so I'm not 
sure about the reasons for contributing this into the main vocabualary 
(and we have to add these reasons to the spec)

My proposal: to remove the NACE specific examples, and to keep Sector. 
At most, if we wish and need to, add a top-level class for NACE/SIC/etc. 
representing their respective vocabularies.

Regards,
-- 
---
Harshvardhan Pandit
PhD Researcher
ADAPT Centre
Trinity College Dublin
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2019 13:02:03 UTC

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