- From: Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 22:56:49 +0200
- To: "public-dpvcg@w3.org" <public-dpvcg@w3.org>
Hi. As we discussed in last week (https://www.w3.org/2022/10/05-dpvcg-minutes.html#t02), we want to have concepts to indicate what rights exist, where to exercise them, what is needed, and the actual instances of rights being exercised. --- # Indicate what rights exist dpv:Right and dpv:hasRight are used here to indicate what right(s) exist and are applicable in a given context --- # Indicate where to exercise right Proposed concept RightExercise denoting information about rights exercise and relation isExercisedAt to indicate where to exercise it. For example, # Company's SAR implementation ex:RightToAccess a dpv-gdpr:A15 ; dpv:isExercisedAt ex:SARPoint . # SAR is submitted through url ex:SARPoint a dpv:RightExercise ; # what rights are handled by this service/page dpv:hasRight dpv-gdpr:A15 ; # who is the controller(s) dpv:hasDataController ex:Controller ; # who implements the right dpv:isImplementedByEntity ex:Controller ; # the location of exercising the right dpv:hasLocation "https://example.com/SAR" ; # what data/processing is needed to exercise # e.g. express ID is Needed for Identity Verification dpv:hasPersonalDataHandling [ ... ] . --- # Instances of rights being exercised The concept RightExerciseActivity to model an exercising of right and track its provenance - using the PROV-O standard i.e. subclassing concepts. This allows expressing activities, artefacts (entities in PROV), and entities (agents in PROV), along with information such as who did what, generated what, timestamps, and so on. Below are examples of some of the back and forth that can happen in SAR requests. ex:SAR1 a dpv:RightExerciseActivity, prov:Activity ; dct:description "Data Subject makes a SAR request"@en ; # what rights this exercise is about dpv:hasRight dpv-gdpr:A15 ; # where this was exercised dpv:isExercisedAt ex:SARPoint ; # who exercised this # --> this can be a third party representative prov:wasAssociatedWith ex:DataSubject ; # who is the data subject dpv:hasDataSubject ex:DataSubject ; # when was this done prov:wasStartedAtTime "timestamp" ; # what is the status of this exercise # more on statuses later dpv:hasStatus right:Requested ; # scope of right (optionally provided) # scope can be anything, so described as a string, or # a concept e.g. Purpose, or combinations using PDH dpv:hasScope [ a dpv:PersonalDataHandilng ... ] ; # what personal data was processed for this # e.g. provide Driver License for identity verification dpv:hasPersonalData [ ... ] . # some (distinct) controller follow up scenarios ex:SAR2A a dpv:RightExerciseActivity, prov:Activity; dct:description "Controller acknowledges the request"@en ; prov:wasStartedAtTime "timestamp" ; prov:wasAssociatedWith ex:DataController ; dpv:hasStatus right:Acknowledged ; # link to previous activity prov:wasInfluencedBy ex:SAR1 . ex:SAR2B a dpv:RightExerciseActivity, prov:Activity; dct:description "Controller refuses the request"@en ; prov:wasStartedAtTime "timestamp" ; prov:wasAssociatedWith ex:DataController ; dpv:hasStatus right:Rejected ; # reason of rejection dpv:hasJustification "We are not the controller ...."@en ; # link to previous activity prov:wasInfluencedBy ex:SAR1 . ex:SAR2C a dpv:RightExerciseActivity, prov:Activity; dct:description "Controller asks for more info"@en ; prov:wasStartedAtTime "timestamp" ; prov:wasAssociatedWith ex:DataController ; dpv:hasStatus right:ActionRequired ; # explain what more needs to be done dpv:hasPersonalDataHandling [ ... ] ; # where to provide information? dpv:hasLocation "url" ; # link to previous activity prov:wasInfluencedBy ex:SAR1 . # follow up from data subject ex:SAR3 a dpv:RightExerciseActivity, prov:Activity; dct:description "Data Subject provides more info"@en ; prov:wasStartedAtTime "timestamp" ; prov:wasAssociatedWith ex:DataSubject ; dpv:hasStatus right:ActionPerformed ; # explain what more has been done dpv:hasPersonalDataHandling [ ... ] # link to previous activity prov:wasInfluencedBy ex:SAR2C . # controller fulfils the right ex:SAR4 a dpv:RightExerciseActivity, prov:Activity; dct:description "Please access your document"@en ; prov:wasStartedAtTime "timestamp" ; prov:wasAssociatedWith ex:DataController ; dpv:hasStatus right:Fulfilled ; # where to find the requested data prov:generated ex:SARCopyX123 ; # link to previous activity prov:wasInfluencedBy ex:SAR3 . # To express artefacts or conditions associated with fulfilment # e.g. providing some information, or a dataset, # or confirming data has been deleted or rectified # or processing has been objected, # the concept RightFulfilment is used. # for information provided as part of SAR # below can be a PDH instance for machine-readable information # or it can be a url webpage, or a PDF # or, for other rights such as right to object, just a confirmation # or, for portability, describe a dataset (e.g. DCAT) ex:SARCopyX123 a dpv:RightFulfilment, prov:Entity ; prov:wasGeneratedBy ex:SAR4 ; dpv:hasRight dpv-gdpr:A15 ; prov:atLocation "url" ; prov:generatedAtTime "timestamp" . --- # Statuses To express different kinds of statuses, we need to have concepts that express (specifically for rights) the back and forth communications that can happen. So, something like: - Exercised - Data subject has exercised a right - Acknowledged - the exercise has been acknowledged - Rejected - the request has been rejected or refused - Fulfilled - the exercise obligations have been fulfilled - Unfulfilled - the exercise obligations have not been fulfilled - AwaitingResponse - the exercise is awaiting response (from an entity) - ActionRequired - the exercise requires some action (from an entity) - ActionPerformed - the required action has been perfomed --- # Additional concepts if needed - format of request/response: prov:Entity + dct:format - Lawfulness - propose to add Lawfulness as a sub type of ComplianceStatus, with types as Lawful, Unlawful, and LawfulnessUnknown. This is then replicated for Laws, as GDPRLawfulness with types GDPRLawful, GDPRUnlawful, and so on ... - Common reasons to refuse exercise such as Identity could not be verified, or scope unclear, or excessive, or controller was not the correct entity, etc. would be modelled as RightRefusalJustifications and provided as a taxonomy to help with use-cases - delegation or representation where someone else exercises a right on behalf of the data subject - <Entity> prov:actedOnBehalfOf <Entity> --- # Implementing each GDPR Right The above just used SAR (GDPR A.15) as an example to show how the right exercise process would be modelled using DPV and PROV. Once we get consensus on what the common way to exercise and record rights should be, we would need to provide guidance for each GDPR right using the above framework. In most cases, only the Right Fulfilment concept would change, e.g. as A.20-CopyOfPersonalData, or A.15-SARInfo, or something like that. --- P.S. Thanks to Georg for doing the requirements collection and to Beatriz for assisting with the discussion on technical flows. Regards, -- --- Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D Research Fellow ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin https://harshp.com/
Received on Friday, 14 October 2022 20:57:05 UTC