- From: Harshvardhan J. Pandit <harshvardhan.pandit@adaptcentre.ie>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 13:44:02 +0100
- To: Jan Lindquist <jan@linaltec.com>
- Cc: "public-dpvcg@w3.org" <public-dpvcg@w3.org>
Hi Jan. Replies are inline. On 19/04/2022 13:27, Jan Lindquist wrote: > 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." I don't understand what this means. That question could not be found on that page. In any case, dct:issued is for providing a timestamp for when that resource was issued or created or put into operation. > > 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? Lifecycle of documents is internal management process, and as such there can be several different incompatible styles of how this is done and documented. Therefore, it was out of scope for this work. DCAT does provide guidance on how datasets can be linked and how to express their provenance using DCT or PROV. See https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-2/#examples-dataset-provenance which uses prov:wasDerivedFrom to denote previous version of record. Regards, -- --- Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D Research Fellow ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin https://harshp.com/
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2022 12:44:17 UTC