Re: Representation of GDPR rights

Rights are definitely of interest and within scope of the work we are 
looking (IMHO).

On 30/04/2020 13:19, besteves@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es wrote:
> For starters, should we discuss which is the best way to do it?
> Two options could be:
> 1) add a new module (such as the purpose, processing, ... modules) to the vocabulary
My intuitive reaction was to have "Rights" as a top-level concept and 
associated with a Personal Data Handling instance.
However, this would not be the right way to go forward as 'rights' are 
not necessarily associated with personal data handling/processing. For 
example, Right to withdraw consent (GDPR) is associated with legal basis 
of consent.

So I would propose that as the first exercise we use the Wiki to list 
down the rights and the relevant concepts currently in DPV regarding 
those (where possible).
Hopefully after this we would have some indication of where to model 
them as a concept.

Conversely, another interpretation of 'rights' is as a policy - which 
means it would go beyond the scope of DPV (currently).
In this case, we should aim to provide the terms required to express 
this policy - which *is* the goal of DPVCG.

> 2) create a separate vocabulary (such as the one created for the legal basis)
Rights are tied to jurisdictional laws/legislations - much in the same 
way as legal basis.
So this makes sense. But instead of a separate vocabulary - we can add 
them to DPV-GDPR.

However, do we create a separate module/extension for every 
jurisdiction? (IMO yes)

P.S. Minutes of meeting for yesterday are at 
https://www.w3.org/2020/04/29-dpvcg-minutes.html
I had trouble remembering how to use Zakim, RRSAgent.

Regards,

-- 
---
Harshvardhan Pandit
PhD Researcher
ADAPT Centre
Trinity College Dublin

Received on Thursday, 30 April 2020 13:53:02 UTC