- From: David Lewis <delewis@tcd.ie>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:59:54 +0100
- To: "Harshvardhan J. Pandit" <me@harshp.com>, public-dpvcg@w3.org
Hi Harsh, Guys, A quick comment on the technology subject definition : "TechnologySubject and hasSubject is the subject of the technology i.e. whom the technology is used on or subjected to. This may be directly (e.g. person within a CCTV camera's vision) or indirectly (e.g. person whose details were used as training data)" Breaking this down, I think we need to be more precise definition of being 'subjected to' technology. I If you parse this as the option ""TechnologySubject and hasSubject is the subject of the technology i.e. whom the technology [is used on or] subjected to." that essentially a circular definitions, so doesn't tell you much. If you parse it as: "TechnologySubject and hasSubject is the subject of the technology i.e. whom the technology is used on [or subjected to.]", that's a bit better but might leave the reader still wondering what classifies as 'used on'. Further, neither of these to my mind necessarily imply case that your data is used for training. In this case this it is more that the technology is built with your data (which is perhaps sufficiently captured by the GDPR definition of data subject) but doesn't necessarily imply that the technology is used 'on' you, or even that your are ever 'subjected to' the technology. So I might suggest i) define 'subjected to' instead as 'affected or potentially affected by the technology' (note this wording is in part inspired by the general definition of 'stakeholder' in ISO ii) consider treating actors whose data is used for training separately somehow, e.g. by just relying on the existing 'data subject' definition. I acknowledge that the implication of these suggestions is that if a person's data is fully anonymised and used for ML training and the resulting technology does not affect or potentially affect that person, then they would fall out of the definition of 'technology subject'. But I think that's probably OK. Regards, Dave On 16/06/2022 18:46, Harshvardhan J. Pandit wrote: > Hello. > The DPV-TECH extension and documentation are now live: > https://w3id.org/dpv/dpv-tech and repo: https://github.com/w3c/dpv > > Suggestions, errors, comments are welcome. For specific issues, please > open a GitHub issue if possible so we can keep track of progress. For > directly providing the change - submit a PR on GitHub. > > I've also updated the DPV concepts from recent resolutions, so there > are several new concepts added e.g. to Context and ProcessingContext > regarding scale, scope, etc. These need to be accompanied with text in > the HTML docs, Primer, etc. that explains the rationale and use. Once > that is in place, the version number will be bumped to v0.8. > > Full changelog here: > https://github.com/w3c/dpv/blob/master/documentation-generator/logs/changelog.txt > It will also be at its usual place at > https://w3id.org/dpv/dpv/changelog when the version is bumped to v0.8 > > As usual: (a) volunteers are very much welcome to help, see github > issues https://github.com/w3c/dpv/issues for things to do; and (b) if > I've missed including any contributors in any place, please let me > know and I'll update them. > > Regards, -- Note: My working day may not be your working day. Please do not feel obliged to reply outside of your normal working hours. Dave Lewis Head of AI Discipline: School of Computer Science and Statistics, Trinity College Dublin Deputy Director: ADAPT Centre, https://www.adaptcentre.ie
Received on Friday, 17 June 2022 20:45:48 UTC