Meeting minutes
Repository: w3c/dpv
Agenda: https://
Meeting minutes: https://
Persistent ID for current minutes: https://
Previous minutes: https://
v2.2 published
v2.2 has been published! -- https://
Nominating Chair
<ghurlbot> Issue 389 DPVCG chair nomination (discussion) (by coolharsh55)
HarshPandit: Call for nominating DPVCG chair https://
BeatrizEsteves: I suggest this be similar to ODRL CG which has several co-chairs so that different expertises can be utilised
HarshPandit: yes that is possible - its option 3 in the email
HarshPandit: suggest discussions going on until OCT-31 and we take a decision in the next meeting
Generic Places
<ghurlbot> Issue 384 Modelling Generic Locations/Places (e.g. Airport, School) (by coolharsh55)
JulianFlake: Christian mentioned in the last meeting that there must be a vocabulary for such concepts; and then whether these are public/private
HarshPandit: There are existing vocabularies e.g. https://
JulianFlake: Also where to draw the line the line in terms of granularity? E.g. different kinds of airports, underground stations and such
HarshPandit: propose to keep issue open to collect concepts from normative sources and also other vocabularies that exist; once we have sufficient concepts we can discuss further
HarshPandit: Do what we have is sufficient for AI Act high-risk and prohibited cases?
DelaramGolpayegani: We have workplace and public places so it depends on how detailed we want to be. Guidelines on Prohibited published by the Commision https://
HarshPandit: thanks, this is a good source to find place concepts
DelaramGolpayegani: Commission will be publishing further guidelines on AI Act in two parts https://
the issue will be kept open to collect concepts and use-cases - in particular from authoritative sources like the prohibited systems guideline for AI Act, at the same time we will identify whether there are other vocabularies such as those in LOV that can represented these concepts; if not - then the discussion will be whether to provide these via DPV
Service Maintainence
<ghurlbot> Issue 287 [NEW]: Add Maintenance as a `dpv:Purpose` (by besteves4)
BeatrizEsteves: this was a use-case related to AI Act / IoT data. We wanted to use policy with a purpose about maintaining services and products.
HarshPandit: ServiceManagement is proposed as the top concept similar to other Management concepts, and then within this we have ServiceMaintainence and ServiceProvision. What needs to be discussed is what should be the hierarchy as currently we have put all service related concepts under ServiceProvision. This was because at the time, we were thinking that what should be expected as part of service provision.
BeatrizEsteves: Do definitions exist for these new concepts?
HarshPandit: Yes (explanation of concepts)
BeatrizEsteves: This will be a breaking change (for parents changed), so better check with people e.g. Georg who implement this
PaulRyan: +1
HarshPandit: The reason for separation is the possibility that there are different legal bases e.g. ServiceProvision is as per the contract, however ServicePersonalisation can be based on legitimate interest or consent, and ServiceMonitoring can be part of a legal obligation. So if there is a hierarchy of purposes and it would be good to keep the purposes distinct to reflect and support such distinctions.
PaulRyan: Agree, this is how it works for cookies, so this is a valid point
we agree on ServiceManagement and ServiceMaintainence as concepts but need to confirm the hierarchy
Purpose Compatibility for GDPR
<ghurlbot> Issue 298 Model Purpose Compatibility statuses for GDPR (by coolharsh55)
BeatrizEsteves: so is the idea that we take two purposes and then state whether they are compatible? (yes) Do we have a use case for this?
HarshPandit: yes, for example if you have obtained consent for purpose A, and now you want to use that data for purpose B, then you must assess and ensure that A is compatible with B. If not, then you must either ask for consent again or look for a different legal basis. This assessment is what is represented in this concept, and the outcomes are the instances.
HarshPandit: for reference, ICO page on compatible and incompatible purposes https://
BeatrizEsteves: agree this is necessary, but thinking of how to use this process
HarshPandit: Using ODRL, Policy A exists and you want to check if policy B should be accepted or not. For this, you check the purpose compatibility and then record that B was accepted because PurposeCompatible or rejected because PurposeIncompatible. When modelling purpose constraints, you want to assert that they must be compatible -- whereas in an assessment you are checking whether two purposes are compatible. So you can note that in a contraint that the purposes must satisfy and give PurposeCompatible as outcome.
BeatrizEsteves: Have to think about this
HarshPandit: (we are only declaring there is an assessment and there are two outcomes possible - compatible and incompatible)
to be continued next week
Proportionality for GDPR
<ghurlbot> Issue 386 Model Proportionality for GDPR (by coolharsh55)
to be continued next week
ACTION: Review GDPR Proportionality by Georg and Stratis
CRDM AI taxonomy
<ghurlbot> Issue 385 Align DPV with CRDM AI concepts (by coolharsh55)
mapping is available - see issue ; to be discussed next week
LEGAL DE-GDNG
<ghurlbot> Issue 387 Extension for the German GDNG (by chhdraeger)
JulianFlake: meeting scheduled for this/next week, so will report back
AOB
Submit v2.2 to LOV
<ghurlbot> Issue 353 v2.2 LOV submission (by coolharsh55)
BeatrizEsteves: Should we discuss how to submit to LOV? (yes)
ACTION: Beatriz and Harsh to work on submitting DPV v2.2 to LOV
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be on OCT-01 Thursday 13:30WEST/14:30CEST
Agenda will be continuation of today's discussion regarding service maintainence, purpose compatibility, and proportionality/necessity, DPV 2.2 submissions, and additional items from v2.3 milestone.