- From: Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:38:48 +0000
- To: Bert Van Nuffelen <Bert.Van.Nuffelen@tenforce.com>, Tek Raj Chhetri <tekrajchhetri@gmail.com>, "public-dpvcg@w3.org" <public-dpvcg@w3.org>
Hi. Thanks. I went through the documentation and github RDF - and I think the FIBO contract terms are a better fit for abstract/general contracts. Of interest from ePO is the link to legislative requirements and the 'Criterion' concepts. These might be useful for data sharing agreements and such - but I need to take a more detailed look at it. Regards, Harsh On 06/11/2023 08:07, Bert Van Nuffelen wrote: > 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/#contrac> >> <https://eprocurementontology.github.io/#contract > <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> <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 <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/> <https://harshp.com/ > <https://harshp.com/>> >> > > -- > --- > 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/
Received on Monday, 6 November 2023 13:38:56 UTC