DPVCG Meeting Call

Meeting minutes: https://w3id.org/dpv/meetings

purl for this meeting: https://w3id.org/dpv/meetings/meeting-2023-09-14

Reminder that there are two MAJOR changes planned - see #99 inclusion of non-personal data in scope; and #107 changes to repo structure

<ghurlbot> Issue 99 Proposal to change DPV scope to include Non-Personal Data (by coolharsh55) [scope] [concepts] [question]

<ghurlbot> Issue 107 Restructure repo layout (by coolharsh55) [documentation] [question]

Modelling Legal Bases

To advance further on the modelling of legal bases, we need to identify concepts relevant. See #111

<ghurlbot> Issue 111 Model information about legal bases (by coolharsh55) [concepts] [todo]

harsh: The SmashHit H2020 project, which has concluded, modelled consent and contract ontologies. We have a good coverage of consent within DPV, so the contract concepts can be adopted. Tek, one of the creators of the ontology, has volunteered to provide the concepts. SmashHit is https://smashhit.eu/

harsh: Amongst other concepts, we need to identify information such as contract types, statuses (e.g. proposed, agreed, violated, terminated, ended) - which are contextually relevant to that specific legal basis.

Consent & Permissions

See discussion thread on mailing list - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpvcg/2023Sep/0000.html

harsh: The gist of this discussion is that we need terms based on the user' side of an agreement or reflecting the individual's perspective. In DPV, we model terms mostly on the basis of legal text - so these terms are 'fixed' or 'decisive'.

harsh: Whereas, modelling the perspectives of individuals would be an opinionated exercise, and thus be prone to not being satisfactory to all. Still, we can provide it as an additional extension, and additionally with different intended uses - such as for marketing, health, or specific applications.

iain: the internet has become more complex, and the current model is broken because it is only controlled by the entities at one end. We need to move to a different model. Similar to how the change is from oil based cars to electric cars is a better and greener change, we need something from the side of the individual.

harsh: And with the recent move towards decentralisation and federation of control, this is necessary to have the individual's perspectives be reflected. Although, in DPVCG, we should be careful and aim to not repeat efforts where existing ones exist and are usable. For example, IEEE P7012 is working on this.

iain: P7012 is not finalised and still figuring out where it is going. MyData has an ontology from the user's perspectives that is in development. The Finnish government has "individually controlled" (ic) as an ontology they are developing based on the MyData model as well.

harsh: as mentioned in the mailing list, we can start with ISO/IEC 29184 and do both legal and user vocabularies.
… note #91 In today's meeting, we discussed implementing 29184 as two vocabularies - one reflecting the legal concepts (that exist in DPV) and another representing the individual's perspectives (that will be new). See minutes https://w3id.org/dpv/meetings/meeting-2023-09-14

<ghurlbot> Added comment

beatriz: The Solid WG charter https://www.w3.org/2023/09/proposed-solid-wg-charter.html does not have DPVCG as a liason or collaboration potential the same way that the Solid CG charter does.

Next Meeting

The schedule for the meeting has changed to WED 15:00 WEST / 16:00 CEST.

Topics for discussion include 27560 implementation (work in progress https://harshp.com/dpv-x/guides/consent-27560) and user-side taxonomy (if there are any updates)