Meeting minutes
Repository: w3c/dpv
Agenda: https://
Meeting minutes: https://
Persistent ID for current minutes: https://
Note change in weekly meeting schedule: We meet now on WED 13:30 WEST / 14:30 CEST
v2.2
<ghurlbot> Issue 301 dpv 2.2 draft review (by coolharsh55)
follow up on reviewing v2.2 draft
PaulRyan: no issues (shared via email)
Julian's review
JulianFlake: typos in Rules HTML
JulianFlake: for LOC there are no non-EU (Unions and Memberships / Section 4) concept in the document
ACTION: fix missing non-EU and non-EEA in LOC
<ghurlbot> Issue 324 [FIX]: Missing non-EU and non-EEA concept declarations in LOC (by coolharsh55)
JulianFlake: in v2.1 there was an issue declared for proposed concepts regarding AtHome, AtWork, etc. which has now been removed in v2.2. There should be an update for the reader to understand what happened with that work.
ACTION: Issue 209 add comment about what happened with AtHome etc.
JulianFlake: For the new Rules, there should be a matrix or table showing the concepts the phrasing associated with them e.g. Permission = MAY, Recommendation = SHOULD; there is a missing concept for MAY NOT which is also shown
ACTION: Adds a matrix / table showing relationship between rule and phrasing
GeorgKrog: for rules (operators) we should have Permission, Prohibition, Obligation, Claim, Liberty, Power, Liability, Immunity, Disability; and then these can be combined in Conjunction, Disjunction, Universal, Existential, Possibility. Question: should this be done in DPV?
HarshPandit: no, because these require logical foundations and are expensive ; see RuleML, LegalRuleML, ODRL work on these
JulianFlake: we have processes and nested processes, so we are dealng with logical structures, so just clarifying the scope i.e. we won't do that with DPV
HarshPandit: e.g. permission process with prohibition process inside – what is the outcome ; ODRL CG is working on this, so suggestion should be to look there as its based on a standard and also good to keep our scope clear
Delaram's review
<ghurlbot> Issue 322 [FIX]: typos, definitions, links in AI, AI Act (by coolharsh55)
<ghurlbot> Issue 322 [FIX]: typos, definitions, links in AI, AI Act (by coolharsh55)
DelaramGolpayegani: AI extension has typos, broken links
DelaramGolpayegani: AI Act extension references and definitions for concept (for AI Act published version) are incorrect; will make corrections in spreadsheet; Not sure whether to add new concepts
ACTION: Fix issues in AI and AI Act
HarshPandit: add them as proposed and we can discuss them for v2.3
DelaramGolpayegani: for the Risk Levels for AI Act, an extra category can be what meets the Anx.III conditions but is not high-risk because there are exceptions based on Art.6
HarshPandit: so if it is not high then where does it fall in the risk level pyramid? Suggestion to formulate the concept with clarity for v2.3
Julio's review
<ghurlbot> Issue 325 [FIX]: Notice section in DPV HTML and TOMs HTML should be under TOMs section (by coolharsh55)
JulioHernandez: questions about structure - DPV Sec. 9 TOMs. Notice is part of Org measure in the dedicated page, but in the main DPV it is a major section
HarshPandit: we could move Notice to be part of the TOMs section in main DPV, and then check the other sections in TOMs as noted by Julio
ACTION: Move Notice section in DPV under TOMs; clarify sections in TOMS module page
<ghurlbot> Issue 326 [FIX]: Example 11 has non-existent concept `dpv:DataTransferSafeguard` (by coolharsh55)
JulioHernandez: Example 11 has dpv:DataTransferSafeguard which doesn't exist (what exists is dpv:SafeguardForDataTransfer)
ACTION: change example 11 contents and title to add SafeguardForDataTransfer
JulioHernandez: Example 3 has RBACCredential class but its not clear what this is -- add more context on what this is class, what is it doing – see the pt2 in the same example for metadata
ACTION: Add context to RBACCredential in Example 3
Art's review - breaking IRIs
<ghurlbot> Issue 313 [FIX]: Typo in IRIs `risk:Renumeration` and `dpv:RightsFulfillment` (by coolharsh55)
ArthitSuriyawongkul: breaking change in IRI due to typo for concept – what to do?
We agree to fix the IRI as minor breaking change in changelog
ACTION: Fix typos in IRI
Art's review - missing jurisdictions
<ghurlbot> Issue 321 [FIX]: 26 concepts for subdivisions of loc:TW, presented in DPV 2.1, disappeared in 2.2 draft (by bact)
ArthitSuriyawongkul: subdivisions and countries in ISO is what we used, but issue with TW missing subdivisions as it is not marked as a Country currently, while other subdivisions are such as AX, MO, HK (and more).
HarshPandit: proposed approach to keep the "Country" classification as per 3166-2 but add a disclaimer section (in RDF and HTML) that informs the modelling choices and duplicate concepts (e.g. AX → FI-01)
ArthitSuriyawongkul: Also for memberships, Faroe islands is part of Denmark but not part of EU (we can deal with this later if it is too much work in code to change this)
Discussion on this, political implications, necessity for methodology to be clear and based on work done in international forums like ISO and UN.
JulianFlake: +1 to make the policy transparent on how we include/exclude something
ACTION: add a statement on political implications (i.e. to avoid any) in the introduction of LOC
Changelog
ArthitSuriyawongkul: Structure of changelog https://
HarshPandit: we have a format https://
ArthitSuriyawongkul: Existing format is okay if it works
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be on AUG-06 Thursday 13:30WEST/14:30CEST (new time slot)
Agenda will be reviewing DPV v2.2 draft release, and starting work on v2.3 -- with a preference to identify topics for discussion where materials/arguments exist and so that we can revist what needs to be done for them.