Re: Contract

Hi Harsh,

As you point out, the contractual part is mainly the result of a tender.
Nevertheless it might be of interest to have a look at the terms mentioned, as they might coincide with other kind of contracts.


kr,

Bert


________________________________
From: Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
Sent: Friday, 3 November 2023 18:19
To: Bert Van Nuffelen <Bert.Van.Nuffelen@tenforce.com>; Tek Raj Chhetri <tekrajchhetri@gmail.com>; public-dpvcg@w3.org <public-dpvcg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Contract

Hi Bert.
Good point/reference - can we use the eProcurement ontology for
service/consumer contracts as well?
I know it is based on the tendering process but not sure if it has
concepts to also model B2C contracts.

Regards,
Harsh

On 03/11/2023 17:03, Bert Van Nuffelen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> on contracts, I would also consult the eProcurement Ontology:
> https://eprocurementontology.github.io/#contrac
> <https://eprocurementontology.github.io/#contract>t
>
> kr,
>
> Bert
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, 3 November 2023 17:57
> *To:* Tek Raj Chhetri <tekrajchhetri@gmail.com>; public-dpvcg@w3.org
> <public-dpvcg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Contract
> Hi Tek.
> Thanks for sharing this. I have made comments in the spreadsheet itself.
>
> More thoughts on the modelling of contracts under DPV:
>
> 1) DPV should prefer normative terms where possible (where normative
> means as it is legally enforceable). In this case, it would be contract
> law which I know little about. I presume SmashHit as a project had the
> necessary legal expert involvement for their use-cases, but I'm not
> quite sure the definitions in the document are generalised enough for DPV.
>
> Do we have a legal expert who can sanity check this for DPV?
>
> 2) FIBO and GIST specifically model business contracts (SmashHit
> ontology references FIBO) and have ability to express relevant
> information such as contract categories, parties, elements of a
> contract, and specific relations such as "has contract party", "has
> contractual element", and "has effective date". See
> https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/ontology/FND/Agreements/Contracts/Contract <https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/ontology/FND/Agreements/Contracts/Contract>
>
> Can we reuse these? IF not, then why not? I see similar concepts in the
> proposed set but with different definitions. I presume FIBO and GIST are
> "normative" in their concepts and definitions given their background.
>
> For the scope of this concept, DPV should only provide 'metadata' about
> the contract, including limited content such as what personal data is
> involved, which service, purpose, etc. We should NOT be aiming to write
> a full legal agreement / contract using DPV. Should we point to FIBO for
> contract information and ODRL to express contents of a contract?
>
> 3) DPVCG's (and DPV's) scope is to have contract be the legal basis for
> processing of personal data (DGA has non-personal data contracts, which
> should be expressed as a concept separately). So the contract categories
> should be a reflection of this category of use-cases similar to how
> consent is categorised based on the requirements (informed, explicit).
>
> As I said earlier, I'm a blank for contract law. But I'd like to see
> aspects such as whether the contract was drafted by a service provider
> and accepted by consumer (with no negotiation), or whether the contract
> was a 2-party agreement e.g. both controller and data subject involved.
> Such categorisation should help in interpreting and applying the
> contract - just like with consent types we identify requirements for
> "valid consent".
>
> 4) Contract as a legal basis can also be B2B e.g. data controller and
> third party (thanks to Jan for asking about this). Should this be in the
> scope of DPV? IMHO - no because it is a separate domain/use-case though
> DPV can help express its contents (e.g. purpose, TOMs).
>
>   From a EU-centric view we have GDPR Art.6-1b state "contract to which
> the data subject is party" as the legal basis and not just a "contract".
> So my suggestion is that DPV's (personal data) contract MUST be with the
> data subject as a party.
>
> NOTE: contract between controller and processor is not covered under
> legal basis, but under organisational measure even if it is a "legal
> basis" from the processor's POV. Same for controller and third party.
>
> 0) With this discussion under way, we have other legal basis that also
> need similar information - using GDPR Art.6-1 list:
> a) consent - done
> b) contract - ongoing
> c) legal obligation - none
> d) vital interests of person - none
> e) public interest - none
> e) official authority - none
> f) legitimate interest of controller - none
> f) legitimate interest of 3rd party - none
>
> We also have DGA's legal basis, which include "donated data" type
> scenarios for altruistic purposes (which AFAIK fit e) public interest).
>
> Regards,
> Harsh
>
>
> On 03/11/2023 15:27, Tek Raj Chhetri wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am writing to share the contract related vocabularies from the
>> smashHit project to be integrated into DPV. I had shared it with Harsh
>> and there're comments, which I will be fixing soon. In the meantime, if
>> there're any further comments, you can directly make a comment.
>>
>> Link:
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-whatFmVqP0XkSp90p_KsGN82TQ3h6CgA8zDSHk92kg/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-whatFmVqP0XkSp90p_KsGN82TQ3h6CgA8zDSHk92kg/edit?usp=sharing> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-whatFmVqP0XkSp90p_KsGN82TQ3h6CgA8zDSHk92kg/edit?usp=sharing >
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best,
>> Tek
>
> --
> ---
> Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D
> Assistant Professor
> ADAPT Centre, Dublin City University
> https://harshp.com/ <https://harshp.com/>
>

--
---
Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
ADAPT Centre, Dublin City University
https://harshp.com/