Re: About recommendation track and other questions

Hi Peter, Replies are inline.
Some opinions are personal and do not necessarily reflect decisions or 
the position of the CG.
Members are welcome (and encouraged!) to participate in this discussion.

tldr; I think the DPV (and other vocabularies you mentioned) is suitable 
for use to record consent, but without knowing your specific 
requirements, I cannot comment on the extent.

On 04/12/2020 11:53, Peter Bruhn Andersen wrote:

> ·To what degree has the above mentioned projects influenced the products 
> of the CG? Can the vocabularies created by the CG be considered as 
> replacing the mentioned projects?

All the (three) efforts you have cited have had an influence on the DPV 
on the working of the DPVCG in terms of design, concepts, and as 
use-cases. Specifically, the DPV aims to extend the Consent Receipt 
specification, e.g. to address GDPR requirements.

(disclosure: I'm the author of GConsent and CDMM, and was/am a 
participating member in the Kantara WG wrt Consent Receipt updates ; so 
some this can be considered biased)

IMHO the vocabularies have an overlap with DPV, and are complimentary 
i.e. they can be used together. Where the vocabularies you cited are 
specific to consent, the DPV takes a more broad approach by considering 
consent as one of the possible legal basis. So I would say the DPV can 
be used as a 'plug-in' vocabulary in other ones through its taxonomy of 
concepts. This is particularly well suited where certain concepts are 
not (currently) covered by DPV e.g. the notion of 'consent states' as in 
GConsent, or the provenance of consent activities.

Conversely, we welcome interest and participation in expanding the DPV 
to represent this information.

> ·How likely is it that the vocabularies developed by the CG will enter 
> the W3C recommendation track? In the event that the vocabularies should 
> not – at some point in time - be given W3C recommendation status how 
> will the stability and resolvability of the vocabularies be guarantied?

This is a personal opinion. I think the DPV as it currently stands will 
take a lot of effort to get put on the W3C standardisation track - 
particularly because the W3C tends to be jurisdiction and location 
agnostic. That said, there can be an effort to generalise the vocabulary 
or use it as a building block to create W3C recommended vocabularies or 
specifications for specific use-cases. For example, defining a  policy 
such as privacy policy or T&C. In this, it relates to existing standards 
e.g. ODRL. Another potential application is standardisation of consent 
mechanisms (on the web) - which the W3C might be interested in, and 
which I personally hope happens soon.

Regarding stability - it depends on how you define stability. I would 
consider the DPV suitable for adoption and use as a general vocabulary. 
The DPV will continue to evolve as we expand it and cover more 
applications, use-cases, jurisdictions - so this means it will change. 
Regarding backwards-compatible, we aim to keep it as generic as possible 
so people can use it in their own implementations.

We have a v0.2 update coming (end of month), which 'fixes' some initial 
design decisions to make the vocabulary more stable in terms of concepts 
and reuse. So unless anyone is using (very specific type of) semantic 
reasoners / inferences in their application, I think the DPV can be 
considered stable as we move ahead.

> ·Do the CG have knowledge about projects where DPV is planned to be used 
> within the European Union, for example Single Digital Gateway or the 
> newly proposed Data Governance Act?

Not yet!
Perhaps we should start with the ISA2 group 
( and ask them to start establishing 
use of vocabularies.

I'm happy to discuss the DPV and consent use-case in more detail over 
email, here over the mailing list, or over a call.

Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D
Research Fellow
ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin

Received on Friday, 4 December 2020 13:32:31 UTC