Great work! I have evaluated the ICO data sharing survey <https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/ico-codes-of-practice/data-sharing-a-code-of-practice/data-sharing-agreements/> and it lines up well with the DPCat. There is one aspect that I would like to check. "If" sharing is rejected (and can be public) could be part of the record. Any views on it? Currently you have "issued". Survey question:"Reason(s) for sharing or not sharing." Should there also be the ability to track any updates to the record that need additional details like reference to previous record or a record id? Or is the lifecycle out of scope? BR, Jan On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 1:03 PM Harshvardhan J. Pandit < harshvardhan.pandit@adaptcentre.ie> wrote: > Hi. > Paul, Rob, and Myself are sharing our work on 'DPCat' which is a > specification for ROPA governance by using DPV and DCAT(-AP). In this, > we create a machine-readable and interoperable specification for sharing > ROPA information based on collected requirements from all of EU DPAs > ROPA templates. In this, DCAT is used to "package" the information and > DPV is used to represent GDPR-related information. > > Specification: https://w3id.org/dpcat > > A draft paper explaining the motivation and creation of this along with > use-cases and application over EDPS ROPA documents: > https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6448787 > > Learning experiences for DPVCG: It is unclear how the DPV concepts > should be used in a consistenct and interoperable manner. For this, we > should discuss identifying use-cases and creating suggested "shapes" > that specify how information should be structured for that use-case. > > Regards, > -- > --- > Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D > Research Fellow > ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin > https://harshp.com/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2022 12:41:31 UTC