[WG-InfoSharing] schema.org and semantic web topics was Re: W3C Data Privacy Vocabulary - Consent Receipt Inputs

Andrew Hughes andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 21 15:37:56 UTC 2019


Forking the thread...

If I understand correctly, schema.org was created to assist web search
tools to parse web pages better - which constrains its usefulness as a
general purpose semantic tool (if it is even  possible to make that kind of
thing)


*Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP
*In Turn Information Management Consulting*

o  +1 650.209.7542
m +1 250.888.9474
5043 Del Monte Ave., Victoria, BC V8Y 1W9
AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com
*https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a>*
*Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security *


On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 8:34 AM James Hazard <james.g.hazard at gmail.com>
wrote:

> A few quick thoughts, in line on Andrew’s list:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 7:32 AM Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Cool.
>> Some more questions, if you don't mind...
>> A) can we treat the list of terms in the vocabulary as exactly that: a
>> controlled word list?
>>
> Most of legal documentation can be done as a “controlled list” of words,
> phrases, document forms.  The problem is who is in “control.”  That is, a
> closed system will always be incomplete and therefore force edge cases and
> diversity into a standard vocabularies and conformity.  It can centralize
> “control” of the vocabulary and hence the thoughts.  Prototype inheritance
> enables “permissionless” variations at the edge.
>
> B) what is supposed to happen when a word has more than one definition? Or
>> is the vocabulary not about definitions but rather about "list of words”?
>>
> C) regarding the RDF - if one were to use, for example, JSON-LD and refer
>> to schema.org context and also this RDF - should it work? (Recognizing
>> that this question is really stretching the limits of my knowledge on
>> semantic web-ish topics - so please rephrase the question if needed)
>>
> I am far from an expert on this subject, but I found that RDF over-solves
> the problem of managing vocabularies.  Schema.org is great, but also too
> limited, so it either needs a way to fork and build, or one needs to start
> otherwise and connect to it.
>
> JSON-LD seems really useful, though I’ve found that you only need a very
> limited set to do most of the work.
>
>
> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=json&file=Wx/org/schema/Person.md
>
>
>> In the most simplistic scenario, does this usage sound right:
>> - I am a Data Controller designing my Consent Receipt data structure
>> - in this scenario, I have only one processing purpose
>> - in order to choose which Purpose for Data Processing to include in the
>> design, I choose the appropriate Purpose word from the DPV document.
>> - therefore I have confidence that other Data Controllers and Data
>> Processors who also use the DPV will know what that specific Purpose word
>> means when they see it in the Consent Receipt output file and can act
>> accordingly
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:10 AM Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me at harshp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew, All.
>>>
>>> On 20/06/2019 01:37, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>> > What I'm actually interested in is how ontologies generally are
>>> consumed
>>> > and used. When I read this one, some items read as definitions, some
>>> as
>>> > description, and some as pure pointers to other documents.
>>> >
>>> > I would like to understand why this is and what the implications are
>>> for
>>> > implementers.
>>>
>>> I think Andrew's questions show the need for more information on what
>>> the DPV *is* and why it is structured the way it is. Since the DPVCG is
>>> currently welcoming feedback and comments on the DPV, I'll note down
>>> about writing a better introduction and adding in a section about
>>> possible usage applications.
>>>
>>> BTW, the 'official' specification is at https://w3.org/ns/dpv which is
>>> IMO easier to go through than the RDF file.
>>>
>>> The DPV is not intended to be applicable to only a specific purpose or
>>> application - it's usage can be quite broad. The aim is to provide a
>>> common vocabulary regarding the processing of personal data.
>>>
>>> The Base Vocabulary defines top-level classes for describing how the
>>> processing of data takes place i.e. what purpose, personal data, legal
>>> basis etc. It is not mandatory for an adopter to use this specific model
>>> - they can utilise other ways of expressing personal data handling as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> The other 'modules' such as Purpose, Personal Data, etc. provide
>>> concepts relevant for a specific domain. For example, purpose defines
>>> the top-level classification of purposes (for the processing of personal
>>> data). One may wish to use only a particular module from the vocabulary.
>>> In that respect, DPV is quite generic.
>>>
>>> The primary reason DPV is provided in RDF/OWL2 (semantic web), is the
>>> shared semantics - which is quite important in expressing knowledge. For
>>> example, in specifying that 'Research' is a purpose, with further
>>> specialisations such as 'Commercial Research' and 'Academic Research'.
>>> Or an even better example - First Name, Pet Name, Common Name - all
>>> being specific categories of a top-level category of Name. So when one
>>> is processing 'Name' it means one can process all categories falling
>>> under the 'Name' category. Combine this with properties, and one can
>>> express all this in what seems to  be 'cool' way to call it - a
>>> knowledge graph.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> ---
>>> Harshvardhan Pandit
>>> PhD Researcher
>>> ADAPT Centre
>>> Trinity College Dublin
>>>
>> --
>> Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP
>> In Turn Information Management Consulting
>> o  +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474
>> 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
>> AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a
>> Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security
>> _______________________________________________
>> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
>> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
>> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20190621/bd12e3db/attachment.html>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list