Meeting minutes
Repository: w3c/dpv
Agenda: https://
Meeting minutes: https://
Persistent ID for current minutes: https://
Previous minutes: https://
Nominating DPVCG chair
See https://
<ghurlbot> Issue 389 DPVCG chair nomination (discussion) (by coolharsh55)
If you are interested in nominating yourself, please do so as soon as possible so there is sufficient awareness and discussion before we make a decision after OCT-31.
Nomination from Beatriz https://
BeatrizEsteves: +1 from Harsh for a co-chair, though the responsibilities should be further clearly defined along with distribution across the two chairs. Harsh is okay to act as 'representative' of DPVCG to other forums, e.g. within ISO, IEEE, CEN and to participate in W3C work, and in general be an evangelist for DPV. This does not necessarily require Harsh to be the chair though. There is a high chance that we will petition to establish a working group based on DPV towards eventual standardisation in W3C. Harsh said he will share a detailed list of tasks he currently works with to help with this discussion.
BeatrizEsteves: +1 for co-chairing; call for more people to volunteer for specific areas/responsibilities if they want to
DelaramGolpayegani: +1 for co-chairing and having beatriz and harsh as co-chairs
ServiceManagement (purpose)
(was ServiceMaintainence in earlier minutes)
agreement in last meeting, to confirm okay to go ahead, breaking change
<ghurlbot> Issue 287 [NEW]: Add Maintenance as a `dpv:Purpose` (by besteves4)
BeatrizEsteves: In the last meeting, we agreed to have Service Management as the top level concept and within it to restructure the hierarchy for Provision, Maintenance, etc. Currently some of these concepts are placed under ServiceProvision. This means we are introducing a breaking change. The rationale is to keep the hierarchy consistent such that different purposes can have different legal bases, which is currently not implemented well. A note will be added explaining this to the Purposes dedicated guidance page.
all: go ahead
Purpose Compatibility for GDPR
agreement in last meeting, to confirm okay to go ahead, breaking change
<ghurlbot> Issue 298 Model Purpose Compatibility statuses for GDPR (by coolharsh55)
all: go ahead
Proportionality for GDPR
to agree on concepts, updated proposal from Stratis and Harsh - see issue
<ghurlbot> Issue 386 Model Proportionality for GDPR (by coolharsh55)
BeatrizEsteves: In previous weeks we have discussed this and Harsh has informed me that along with Georg (earlier in DPVCG) and Stratis (recently) these concepts have a clear proposal and need. The concepts are proposed in the issue and there is consensus amongst people who have been working on it.
concepts are: ProportionalityAssessment and NecessityAssessment, and ProportionalityStatus with instances Proportionate and Disproportionate; there will be links to formal guidance in the HTML documentation for these
all: Go ahead, these concepts should be integrated
StratisKoulierakis: working on documentation on how to use the terms with Harsh
CRDM concepts (EU Publications Office AI Taxonomy)
<ghurlbot> Issue 385 Align DPV with CRDM AI concepts (by coolharsh55)
DelaramGolpayegani: Harsh already mapped out concepts; Delaram has a document with analysis (https://
LEGAL DE-GDNG
<ghurlbot> Issue 387 Extension for the German GDNG (by chhdraeger)
JulianFlake: already started mapping out concepts; currently discussing which ones are necessary; looking for use cases where these concepts are necessary to inspire the collection of terms; focus on identifying entities and processing operations at the moment
BeatrizEsteves: at least for now keeping labels in English will help to comment and discuss the usefulness of the proposed concepts
MaryamMohammadi: working with the personal data taxonomy in a multilingual context and would be useful to know how the process goes for this particular type of concepts
AI Agent
<ghurlbot> Issue 197 Model `Agent` and `LegalAgent` (by ghurlbot)
core concepts are dpv:Agent and dpv:LegalAgent, and then dpv:Representative will be a type of legal agent, and we will have tech:MachineAgent which will be further specified as tech:UserAgent and ai:AIAgent. The focus here is to provide the vocabulary for these concepts.
all: core concepts are accepted
Plan for additional concepts from EHDS, AI Act, NIS2
we established a plan of action last week, see previous minutes. If anyone is interested, please register the interest here or github or mailing list etc. We will start dedicated meetings for these with the registered participants and use these meetings to report back findings and make decisions.
BeatrizEsteves: EHDS - will work on it with Georg during October
<ghurlbot> Issue 238 Update EHDS extension with practical concepts (by coolharsh55)
DelaramGolpayegani: AI Act & NIS2 - no concrete plan yet on the topics that will be tackled; so probably it will not be for the next DPV release, but the current topics being explored continue the work around risk assessment
<ghurlbot> Issue 222 Update NIS2 extension with practical concepts (by coolharsh55)
<ghurlbot> Issue 229 Update EU-AIAct extension with practical concepts (by coolharsh55)
Proposal from Georg to map ISO/IEC 42005 AI System Impact Assessment
https://
BeatrizEsteves: This standard provides concepts that are relevant to the impact assessments associated with AI, and therefore will be useful in DPIA, FRIA, etc. Harsh has indicated support for including this work, and Georg already has mapped many concepts to check feasibility and utility.
DelaramGolpayegani: +1; wants to look into it; challenge: how to align these with AI Act; how to align with other impact assessments, e.g., DPIA
BeatrizEsteves: if concepts already exist or should be mapped into existing extensions, then work can be only on a guidance document
DelaramGolpayegani: how to decide if they are in scope; when there will be a decision by the EC on the harmonised standards it will help to decide on this
HarshPandit: we can have extensions for each standard in a different namespace, i.e., dpv/standards/iso/xxxx, as we have done for P7012; or we can align several standards in the same extension
HarshPandit: not in scope of the group to align regulations or standards, common concepts can be on a common spec as we have the main DPV spec (clarification: we are not the authority to do this, so we are providing concepts that show the relation but offer no legal interpretation, e.g., Impact assessment in core DPV to identify related impact assessments in different laws and then how they are related - this will be original research) (but in general support Delaram's call for caution)
HarshPandit: +1 to work on it as companies are being incentivized to use standards; nice check for completeness and usefulness of DPV in general
Proposal from Beatriz to map EU Unfair Consumer Directive
<ghurlbot> Issue 392 Extension for the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (by besteves4)
BeatrizEsteves: Harsh has indicated support for this while noting that consumer protection is distinct from data protection in EU legal framework. If the scope of this work will be about how consumer protection can help with privacy and data protection, then that fits DPVCG very well. For example, consent is also a consumer protection issue, as are contracts that ask for data sharing. This has overlaps with work in P7012 for example. And there is also the new proposal for the Digital Fairness Act which supports this interpretation.
BeatrizEsteves: There will be a research project on the unfair consumer directive in Ghent. So there is a need to use this both in ODRL and in DPV. Should this be in scope for DPV? Previous work on providing an ODRL profile for this is available at https://
HarshPandit: there's risks, harms, roles, and other concepts related to impact assessments that can be modelled; requirements related to the modelling of providers and consumers can also be of interest
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be on OCT-15 Wednesday 13:30WEST/14:30CEST
Agenda for next meeting will be continuing discussion on topics started for v2.3 and any other updates/new proposed topics.