Adding a statement on political implications in LOC

Hi All.
In the last meeting [1] we discussed the modelling of jurisdictions and 
how this has political implications which we may not have intended or 
thought about. We then agreed to add a disclaimer to the LOC extension 
regarding this. Please review it at: 
https://dev.dpvcg.org/2.2/loc/#introduction with the contents copied 
below for convenience. For feedback / suggestions, please use 
https://github.com/w3c/dpv/issues/328 preferably or reply to this email.

---
Note: IMPORTANT: Statement on Geo-Political Implications

Locations and jurisdictions are contentious concepts and are subject to 
political conflicts and disputes. The authors and contributors for this 
document, as well as other members and participants in the W3C DPVCG, 
are providing this document and associated resources with the sole goal 
of facilitating reference to locations and jurisdictions through a 
machine-readable vocabulary. To avoid any unwanted political 
implications of this work, we have utilised the ISO 3166 standard as a 
reflection of global consensus (in as much as has been made possible) 
with further links to UN resources. Any mistakes or lapses in this 
resource are not intentional and we welcome efforts to highlight and fix 
them.

Further, due to the modular nature of DPV, it is feasible and practical 
to create extensions that represent an intended modelling of 
jurisdictions within the legal namespace, similar to how laws and 
authorities have been modelled. Thus, adopters have a choice to create 
and utilise (and to propose to the DPVCG) other models of locations 
based on requirements for each specific jurisdiction.
---

[1] https://w3id.org/dpv/meetings/meeting-2025-07-30

-- 
---
Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D
Research Fellow @ AI Accountability Lab
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
https://harshp.com/

Received on Friday, 1 August 2025 11:37:30 UTC