Meeting minutes
Repository: w3c/dpv
Agenda: https://
Meeting minutes: https://
Persistent ID for current minutes: https://
Note change in meeting link
intro: Jess working on engineering on Solid for personal data stores, focusing on consent management
v2.2
<ghurlbot> Issue 301 dpv 2.2 draft review (by coolharsh55)
milestone https://
HarshPandit: working on changelog
RISK: Lose vs Loss
<ghurlbot> Issue 368 [FIX]: Typo on Reputational Risks concepts codes starting with Lose (by csarven)
current: LoseCredibility, new: CredibilityLoss (breaking change)
DelaramGolpayegani: +1
JulianFlake: (what's the change) -- Lose is a verb, Loss is a noun. What is the common practice? What do we use?
HarshPandit: apparently we use nouns
JulianFlake: Option 1 is better (LossCredibility) as this saydpv 2.2 draft reviews there is Loss and then what it is about. It sounds werid in terms of phrasing. LossOfCredibility is not among the options.
DelaramGolpayegani: this concept is a consequence or an impact, so it would be a Loss of Credibility
HarshPandit: We can have LossCredibility as the term and Loss of Credibility in the label
DelaramGolpayegani: so we follow our best practice for consistency between labels and terms (use of "of" here), and are we using the verb form that implies the event or the noun.
HarshPandit: we should put this on the wiki (my grammar is not good enough) https://
JulianFlake: When we have a rule that we skip "of", "in", "at" etc. in the term while adding that in the label; then its not weird to read the label. But its still weird for people who see the terms for the first time.
DelaramGolpayegani: or if we have the option that we can avoid these in the first place (e.g. by going with CredibilityLoss) then we go with that as a preference
HarshPandit: we also seem to be have preferred prefix forms over suffix forms (so CredibilityLoss over LossCredibility)
JulianFlake: Another angle is that if we have different forms of e.g. reputation gain then the main concept is reputation and not loss anymore. In RISK, its most likely that we traverse the hierarchy starting with Loss. So depends on the context on how you narrow the terms to their meaning and group them together. Currently, they are grouped together based on loss.
HarshPandit: new rule that if we have a core concept that we want to group the concepts together around, we follow that -- here it is Loss and then suffixes for this so people can follow the rules
StratisKoulierakis: Its more likely that we also have e.g. Credibility damage. So if we forget about the tree, then Credibility as the focus makes sense.
JulianFlake: do we have a broader term to state something that affects Reputation
HarshPandit: here we refer to Risk as in it is about or affects Reputation
Beta Release
HarshPandit: publish as beta release, time period for final release? 1 month?
agreed - yes (as usual practice)
HarshPandit: evaluation tasks are complete w3c/
Undiscussed agenda items
i.e. items on the agenda but not discussed
<ghurlbot> Issue 197 Model `Agent` and `LegalAgent` (by ghurlbot)
- model agents and legal agents
<ghurlbot> Issue 294 AI Model Development Phases (by coolharsh55)
- AI model development phases
- Overlapping Personal Data concepts across extensions
<ghurlbot> Issue 341 Add Location concepts to PD extension e.g. Home, Work (by coolharsh55)
-- Locations in PD
<ghurlbot> Issue 342 Add Location concepts to TECH extension e.g. Device, App (by coolharsh55)
-- Personal Data storage in TECH
<ghurlbot> Issue 12 Use-Cases and Examples showing how vocab can be used (by coolharsh55)
- Use-Cases & Examples structure - mandatory to be documented for new concepts
<ghurlbot> Issue 137 Move code for document/minute generation to another branch (by coolharsh55)
- repo Changes: changes to repo (moving code generator to dev branch) -- this was mentioned and will be implemented during v2.2 final release
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be on AUG-27 Thursday 13:30WEST/14:30CEST
Agenda will be finalising DPV v2.2 beta 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.