[minutes] 2019-10-15 dpvcg

See also: https://www.w3.org/2019/10/15-dpvcg-minutes


   [1]W3C

      [1] https://www.w3.org/

                             – DRAFT –
 Data Privacy Vocabularies and Controls Community Group Teleconference

15 October 2019

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/mid/1F109BBA-A5C0-4744-BE34-F9DE8E461A2D@wu.ac.at
      [3] https://www.w3.org/2019/10/15-dpvcg-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Axel, Bert, Bud, Harsh

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Bert

   Scribe
          Axel

Contents

     * [4]Meeting minutes
         1. [5]ISSUES?
     * [6]Summary of action items
     * [7]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

   <harsh> ACTION-123

   <trackbot> [8]ACTION-123: Elmar Kiesling to Advertise dpvcg at
   mydata: place in Community Call (starting Oct, contact Sille)
   -- due 2019-10-01 -- OPEN

      [8] https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/actions/123

   <harsh> ACTION-126

   <trackbot> [9]ACTION-126: Axel Polleres to Ask bert to update
   the cgwebpage to advertise the drafts more prominently. -- due
   2019-09-10 -- OPEN

      [9] https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/actions/126

   dialing

   moment, connection problem

   <harsh> @axelpolleres okay, we're clearing up some actions

   great, will join in some mins

   <Bert> trackbot, close action-126

   <trackbot> Closed action-126.

   <Bert> trackbot, close action-123

   <trackbot> Closed action-123.

   <harsh> Hi Mitzi, did you get the login details for call?

   PROPOSED: accept minutes from last time

   <harsh> +1

   <Bert> action-129?

   <trackbot> [10]action-129: Axel Polleres to Check in the next
   telcos, whethrer we're on track for that timplan. -- due
   2019-09-10 -- OPEN

     [10] https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/actions/129

   Resolved: accept minutes from last time

   Axel: in these minutes we should have a timeplan: [11]https://
   www.w3.org/2019/09/03-dpvcg-minutes.html

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2019/09/03-dpvcg-minutes.html

   Plan/time schedule from a month ago: by today we wanted to vote
   for resolutions of all open issues (unless new issues/comments
   we could then have them incorporated) , start internal
   reviewing mid october, internal reviews by end october in,
   incorporated/voted to publish by mid Nov?

   Bert: not that many ACTIONs open.

ISSUES?

   <Bert> [12]issues

     [12] https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/issues/open

   <harsh> quite a few actions pending review [13]https://
   www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/actions/pendingreview

     [13] https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/actions/pendingreview

   Axel: shall we just move issues we know we won't resolve to
   POSTPONED issues which we list e.g. as an appendix to the
   document?

   PROPOSED: move issue-2 to postponed issues under the following
   text: "The group did not concsidr definint any notion of
   (legal) compliance with respect to a particular legislation in
   scope of the current specification. While we assume that
   certain violations of compliance could be recorded with the
   current vocabulary, but compliance guarantees or compliance
   checking algorithms are not part of this specification."

   <harsh> +1

   +1 modulo typo fixing

   <bud> +1

   Resolved: move issue-2 to postponed issues under the following
   text: "The group did not concsider defining any notion of
   (legal) compliance with respect to a particular legislation in
   scope of the current specification. While we assume that
   certain violations of compliance could be recorded with the
   current vocabulary, compliance guarantees or compliance
   checking algorithms are not part of this specification."

   <Bert> +1

   ISSUE-3: we assume this is about data subject rights in the
   current discussion.
   … e.g. right for rectification, right to be forgotten, etc.

   <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-3 Do we want to revisit a
   definition of "gdpr rights" in our definitions and taxonomies?.

   Axel: Where would that fit in the vocabulary?

   Axel: Are certain rights tied to the legal basis? to the kind
   of processing?

   Harsh: could be either

   Bud: not every right is applicable to all kinds of data
   handling.
   … I wanted to do a transition diagram on the rights and how
   they connect.

   Axel: we should finihs things up by end of the year to a stable
   state, but I personally cannot guarantee I can continue to
   chair beyond.

   <harsh> 1) Will Bert continue as chair? 2) Can ask for
   volunteers to continue the WG?

   Action: Bud to try with Eva to come up with a proposal to
   represent GDPR rights by the end of November.

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-132 - Try with eva to come up with a
   proposal to represent gdpr rights by the end of november. [on
   Bud P. Bruegger - due 2019-10-22].

   Action-132: this action is tied to ISSUE-3

   <trackbot> Notes added to Action-132 Try with eva to come up
   with a proposal to represent gdpr rights by the end of
   november..

   <bud> Bud and Eva will try to come up with partial
   state-transition diagrams to illustrate the interdependencies
   of data subject rights

   <Bert> issue-6?

   <trackbot> [14]issue-6: Should our taxonomy include a
   distinction/modeling of data subjects to whom gdpr applies (eu
   citizens and/or locatedin eu) -- open

     [14] https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/issues/6

   <harsh> If someone does want to specify a subset or
   specialisation of data subjects, e.g. those based in EU, these
   could be represented by subclassing the DataSubject class and
   annotating/describing it with required conditions.

   <harsh> If we wish to model "EU citizen", then it needs
   specifying data subect --> citizen of --> nation --> member
   state --> EU/EEA

   <harsh> Additionally, the GDPR also applies to services
   'operating in EU/EEA'

   PROPOSED: We leave the further specification of specific
   subclasses of DataSubjects out of scope of the current CG, the
   spec provides just one example,
   … dpv:Child that could serve as an illustration for other
   subclasses affecting certain groups of DataSubjects (e.g.
   Citizens of certain states to which a particular legislation
   applies, etc.) with this rationale we postpone ISSUE-6.

   <harsh> +1

   +1

   <Bert> +1

   <bud> +1

   Resolved: We leave the further specification of specific
   subclasses of DataSubjects out of scope of the current CG, the
   spec provides just one example, dpv:Child that could serve as
   an illustration for other subclasses affecting certain groups
   of DataSubjects (e.g. Citizens of certain states to which a
   particular legislation applies, etc.) with this rationale we
   postpone ISSUE-6.

   <Bert> issue-9?

   <trackbot> [15]issue-9: Where are categories of data
   controllers used, where are they useful? (cf. recital 98, 99,
   100) -- open

     [15] https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/issues/9

   PROPOSED: With the same rationale as not defining any
   particular subclasses or categories of dataSubjects, we leave
   the concrete definition of particular subcategories of
   dpv:DataController as an extension point. With this rationale
   we postpone ISSUE-9

   <harsh> +1

   +1

   <bud> +1

   <Bert> +1

   Resolved: With the same rationale as not defining any
   particular subclasses or categories of dataSubjects, we leave
   the concrete definition of particular subcategories of
   dpv:DataController as an extension point. With this rationale
   we postpone ISSUE-9

   <Bert> issue-10?

   <trackbot> [16]issue-10: Are there mappings to gics from other
   coding systems naics/nace/isic ... -- open

     [16] https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/issues/10

   <harsh> [17]https://github.com/dpvcg/dpv-nace

     [17] https://github.com/dpvcg/dpv-nace

   <harsh> [18]https://www.w3.org/ns/dpv#vocab-purposes

     [18] https://www.w3.org/ns/dpv#vocab-purposes

   <harsh> Example of NACE and DPV-NACE

   "dpv-nace: NACE-CODE" in Section 5 looks weird

   Action: harsh to fix the extra space in "dpv-nace: NACE-CODE."
   in Section 5

   <trackbot> Error creating an ACTION: could not connect to
   Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what
   happened.

   Since ACTION-87 is long overdue, I would prefer to close it as
   undone and leave GICS as an extension point for the future.

   PROPOSED: to close ACTION-87 and also postpone ISSUE-10 with
   the following rationale: at the moment the spec only defines a
   schemafor business sector codes in NACE, we leave the
   definition of (mappings to) other business sector code
   standards such as eg. GICS to future extensions.

   +1

   <Bert> +1

   <bud> +1

   <harsh> +1

   Resolved: to close ACTION-87 and also postpone ISSUE-10 with
   the following rationale: at the moment the spec only defines a
   schemafor business sector codes in NACE, we leave the
   definition of (mappings to) other business sector code
   standards such as eg. GICS to future extensions.

   <harsh> FYI: EU RAMON provides conversion tables in case
   someone wants to take up this work - [19]https://ec.europa.eu/
   eurostat/ramon/relations/
   index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_REL&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntCurrentPage=1
   1

     [19] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/relations/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_REL&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntCurrentPage=11

   next telco 29th october. Note: we are probably a bit behind the
   timeplan, but still can make it to publish until the end of the
   year.

   Adjourned

Summary of action items

    1. [20]Bud to try with Eva to come up with a proposal to
       represent GDPR rights by the end of November.
    2. [21]harsh to fix the extra space in "dpv-nace: NACE-CODE."
       in Section 5

Summary of resolutions

    1. [22]accept minutes from last time
    2. [23]move issue-2 to postponed issues under the following
       text: "The group did not concsider defining any notion of
       (legal) compliance with respect to a particular legislation
       in scope of the current specification. While we assume that
       certain violations of compliance could be recorded with the
       current vocabulary, compliance guarantees or compliance
       checking algorithms are not part of this specification."
    3. [24]We leave the further specification of specific
       subclasses of DataSubjects out of scope of the current CG,
       the spec provides just one example, dpv:Child that could
       serve as an illustration for other subclasses affecting
       certain groups of DataSubjects (e.g. Citizens of certain
       states to which a particular legislation applies, etc.)
       with this rationale we postpone ISSUE-6.
    4. [25]With the same rationale as not defining any particular
       subclasses or categories of dataSubjects, we leave the
       concrete definition of particular subcategories of
       dpv:DataController as an extension point. With this
       rationale we postpone ISSUE-9
    5. [26]to close ACTION-87 and also postpone ISSUE-10 with the
       following rationale: at the moment the spec only defines a
       schemafor business sector codes in NACE, we leave the
       definition of (mappings to) other business sector code
       standards such as eg. GICS to future extensions.


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    Bert Bos's [27]scribe.perl version 88 (Tue Oct 15 18:13:07
    2019 UTC), a reimplementation of David Booth's
    [28]scribe.perl. See [29]history.

     [27] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
     [28] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [29] https://github.com/w3c/scribe2/commits/master/scribe.perl

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2019 18:36:57 UTC