- From: Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 13:46:46 +0100
- To: Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>, public-dpvcg@w3.org
Hi Victor, all. Victor - Thanks for the reply. This confirms my understanding of the use of DPV. Unless there are counter or alternate arguments to this - I think we can move ahead with this for examples in the Primer and elsewhere. Regards, Harsh On 01/04/2020 17:33, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel wrote: > Dear Harsh, all, > > The authors of paper [1] proceeded following a common pattern, and I > would advocate for option 1. > > In this pattern, dpv:Collection is a class representing an action > --please note that you defined dpv:Collection as "to gather data from > someone", which is a verb. > Instances of that class are specific executions of that actions. "what > Victor collected yesterday", "the collection of Harsh tomorrow", "the > collection of the person requesting this personal data handling". > Consequently, the anonymous modelling of the authors of [1] is correct. > > As a second reason, the property hasProcessing has dpv:Processing as > range. From here, reasoners will infer that dpv:Collect is of type > dpv:Processing, and hence a classs individual. Thus, if I am not > wrong, dpv:Collect will be both class and instance. This was directly > forbidden in OWL1, but accepted in OWL2 [2] ("punning"). So it will be > ok but maybe not so appealing. > > But please consider that I am not closely following this work, so I do > apologize if I missed something. > > Best regards, > Víctor > > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/#F12:_Punning > > El 01/04/2020 a las 9:43, Harshvardhan J. Pandit escribió: >> Hello. >> Came across this paper [1] using DPV. >> What is the opinion of the semantic web experts here on how instances >> should be represented? Directly as classes or as blank nodes? >> >> The paper presents an example of PersonalDataHandling instance as: >> >> ex:dataRequest a dpv:PersonalDataHandling ; >> dpv:hasDataSubject ex:patient1 ; >> dpv:hasPurpose [a dpv:AcacemicResearch] ; >> dpv:hasProcessing [a dpv:Collect]; >> dpv:hasLegalBasis [a dpv:Consent]; >> dpv:hasDataController ex:hospital1; >> dpv:haRecipient ex:physician3; >> dpv:hasPersonalDataCategory [a dpv:PhysicalHealth]; >> dcterms:title "Personal Data Collection for clinical study >> ..." . >> >> In providing examples, how should we advocate use of the vocabulary? >> 1) blank nodes -> dpv:hasProcessing [a dpv:Collect]; >> I assume this arises is from the property's range value which is >> taken to require an instance of dpv:Processing, and therefore the >> creation of a blank node. >> I do not think this is a good design pattern simply because it leaves >> blank nodes with no purpose other than to satisfy the range is an >> instance of a class semantics. I presume this is also not how people >> would think about processing - one is likely to go processing is >> "Collect". >> >> 2) specify classes -> dpv:hasProcessing dpv:Collect; >> I like that this is much cleaner and what someone would actually want >> to indicate, but does not seem to satisfy range is an instance of >> dpv:hasProcessing condition (note: it doesn't violate it either). >> >> This question has also been raised to me at various points, >> especially by those who are not well versed in semantic web >> (including me!). >> And in working on the Primer, it would be good to have this clarified >> in the examples. >> >> [1] Personal Data Privacy Semantics in Multi-Agent Systems Interactions >> Davide Calvaresi, Michael Schumacher, and Jean-Paul Calbimonte >> University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzelrand (HES-SO) >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Davide_Calvaresi/publication/340137395_Personal_Data_Privacy_Semantics_in_Multi-Agent_Systems_Interactions/links/5e7b3e3a4585152fc0ecbc2a/Personal-Data-Privacy-Semantics-in-Multi-Agent-Systems-Interactions.pdf >> >> >> Regards, > > -- --- Harshvardhan Pandit PhD Researcher ADAPT Centre Trinity College Dublin
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2020 12:47:03 UTC