- From: Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 08:25:24 +0100
- To: René Pietzsch <rene.pietzsch@eccenca.com>, "public-dpvcg@w3.org" <public-dpvcg@w3.org>
- Cc: Karteek Suryadevara <Karteek.Suryadevara@eccenca.com>, Magnus Knuth <Magnus.Knuth@eccenca.com>
Hi. tldr; there isn't a single 'right' or 'preferred' way to use DPV because everyone wants to use it as it fits their models & use-cases. As a result, everyone is confused for how to use it. We are discussing how to best resolve this. Using <Resource> dpv:hasPersonalDataCategory <Category> doesn't violate any semantic constraints since the property has no range assertions (asserted within DPV). Still, one may not want to do this, and want strict semantics with named individuals or instances. I prefer the #1 solution of providing a SKOS taxonomy since its much easier to use and change as needed in an use-case. The issue with #2 owl:NamedIndividual is that it prevents using categories as classes, which is the design DPV inherited from SPECIAL vocabularies. As for usage, we try to keep track of them here (there are undoubtedly more): https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/wiki/Adoption_of_DPVCG Additionally, I'm aware of the following specifics: 1) TRAPEZE is continuing use of SPECIAL's OWL classes model 2) Signatu is using DPV as a taxonomy, but AFAIK without semantic web I've been playing around with creating SKOS versions of DPV - https://github.com/coolharsh55/dpv-x/tree/master/dpv-skos You can check if this style of modelling makes sense for your use-case. If it does, let us know, and I'll bump it higher on the priority list since its clear there's a need for that following your email. I'm debating which should be the 'canonical' representation - OWL, RDFS, or SKOS. IMHO, RDFS for semantics (classes, properties) plus SKOS for maintaining hierarchies (narrower, broader) is probably what fits most needs. Regards, Harsh On 18/10/2021 11:35, René Pietzsch wrote: > Hello DPV working group, > > we are currently working on a GDPR Demo use case on top of dev / dpv-gdpr. In the process and evaluating and refining our initial draft we wondered about your intended usage of the Personal Data Category class-tree. What would you expect to be instances of these classes? How would you see the linkage to actual resources. > > The resources in our use case are (mainly office) files / documents (on local and share drives). These shall be classified and categorized. Here the DPV categories come in handy. However using <Resource> -- dpv:hasPersonalDataCategory --> PersonalDataCategory/* as indicated in https://w3c.github.io/dpv/dpv/#vocab-personal-data-categories seams „strange“ as „intuitively“ we would like to link to an instance rather then to a class. > > We see two practical ways forward: 1) turn the PersonalDataCategories tree into a (skos) Taxonomy ( https://github.com/w3c/dpv/issues/8 ) and/or 2) annotate the PersonalDataCategories as owl:NamedIndividuals. In the end both seam odd to us as we would like to be able to use dpv as is without the need to alter or enrich it in order to start using it. Thus, we would like to understand how you are using / applying it… > > Thank you and best, > > René > > -- > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards > René Pietzsch > > eccenca GmbH > mobile +49 172 6940 915 > rene.pietzsch@eccenca.com > -- --- Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D Research Fellow ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin https://harshp.com/
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2021 07:26:01 UTC