W3C

– DRAFT –
DPVCG

04 June 2019

Attendees

Present
Axel, Bert, Elmar, Harsh, Javier, mark
Regrets
Chair
Bert
Scribe
axel

Meeting minutes

<harsh> I think echo is coming from Bert's side

<harsh> Agenda sent by Bert: https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dpvcg/‌2019Jun/‌0001.html

<harsh> (also javier)

<Javier> +1

<harsh> +1

<axelpolleres> previous minutes link?

<elmar> +1

<elmar> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌05/‌23-dpvcg-minutes.html

<axelpolleres> PROPOSED: approve minutes from last time https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌05/‌23-dpvcg-minutes.html

Resolved: approve minutes from last time https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌05/‌23-dpvcg-minutes.html

actions items review

<axelpolleres> https://‌www.w3.org/‌community/‌dpvcg/‌track/‌actions/‌open

<Bert> action-70?

<trackbot> action-70: Axel Polleres to Check back with owners which actions are ready for review and discussion in the call -- due 2019-03-05 -- OPEN

<axelpolleres> close ACTION-70

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-70.

<Bert> action-76?

<trackbot> action-76: Axel Polleres to Map all closed and pending review actions to the respective edoitors/responsibles of parts ofg our taxonomy. -- due 2019-03-26 -- OPEN

<axelpolleres> close ACTION-76

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-76.

<Bert> action-81?

<trackbot> action-81: Axel Polleres to Put internet scope/wider scope on the agenda tomorrow. -- due 2019-04-11 -- OPEN

<Bert> action-89?

<trackbot> action-89: Axel Polleres to Finish base ontology by next call (within 2 weeks) -- due 2019-04-12 -- OPEN

<axelpolleres> close ACTION-89

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-89.

<Bert> action-97?

<trackbot> action-97: Axel Polleres to Define a process to get from spreadsheets to spec. -- due 2019-04-12 -- OPEN

<harsh> http://‌github.com/‌dpvcg/‌extract-sheets/

<harsh> script to get doc from spreadsheet

<Bert> action-99?

<trackbot> action-99: Bert Bos to Look into where to publish our cg spec, and how to redirect from the namespace doc to the spec. -- due 2019-04-12 -- OPEN

<axelpolleres> Harsh has documented how to genreate the spec and what manual editing is needed

<harsh> (will be adding more detailed instructions later today)

<axelpolleres> ..., see http://‌github.com/‌dpvcg/‌extract-sheets/ this closes ACTION-97

<axelpolleres> close ACTION-97

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-97.

<harsh> Github pages version https://‌dpvcg.github.io/‌extract-sheets/‌index.html

<axelpolleres> rdf is part of the HTML at the moment, we could just host the HTML on the namespace page.

<axelpolleres> Bert: each namespace needs a machine-readable version and an HTML page.

<harsh> I can generate the files (HTML + rdf)

<axelpolleres> ... but we need both for all three namespaces.

Action: Harsh to generate the separate RDF files per namespace.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-111 - Generate the separate rdf files per namespace. [on Harshvardhan Pandit - due 2019-06-11].

<axelpolleres> ACTION-99: should be tied to ACTION-111

<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-99 Look into where to publish our cg spec, and how to redirect from the namespace doc to the spec..

Action: Axel to review spec and reflection of ISSUES in the spec on next Tue

<trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Review spec and reflection of issues in the spec on next tue [on Axel Polleres - due 2019-06-11].

<Bert> action-109?

<trackbot> action-109: Axel Polleres to Check with harsh whether/how the script have a way to display the "comments" column as issues to be discussed in the spec generation? -- due 2019-05-30 -- OPEN

<axelpolleres> Elmar can help.

Action: elmar together with Harsh check comments in spreadsheets (drive-comments and 'comments' column) and how they are reflected in the generated spec

<trackbot> Created ACTION-113 - Together with harsh check comments in spreadsheets (drive-comments and 'comments' column) and how they are reflected in the generated spec [on Elmar Kiesling - due 2019-06-11].

<Bert> action-110?

<trackbot> action-110: Elmar Kiesling to Review comments on personaldatacategory descriptions and see whether we need to discuss, request any specific comments.. on any of them -- due 2019-05-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<elmar> close action-110

<trackbot> Closed action-110.

<axelpolleres> ACTION-113: if this is done it also should close ACTION-109, so we close ACTION-109

<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-113 Together with harsh check comments in spreadsheets (drive-comments and 'comments' column) and how they are reflected in the generated spec.

<axelpolleres> close ACTION-109

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-109.

<harsh> close action 68, 84, 106

<axelpolleres> close ACTION-84

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-84.

<axelpolleres> close ACTION-68

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-68.

<axelpolleres> close ACTION-106

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-106.

<axelpolleres> ACTION-14: deprecated, no longer relevant

<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-14 Ask hendrik for edition ieee 7012.

<axelpolleres> close ACTION-14

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-14.

<Mark> hi ..

<Bert> action-67?

<trackbot> action-67: Javier D. Fernández to Look into data controllers and recipients taxonomy with help of piero, axel -- due 2019-02-19 -- OPEN

<axelpolleres> ACTION-67: agreement to leave it with the current version

<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-67 Look into data controllers and recipients taxonomy with help of piero, axel.

Issue: we ask for particular feedback on whether and how to extend the list/taxonomy of controllers and recipients in the current vocabulary.

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-22 - We ask for particular feedback on whether and how to extend the list/taxonomy of controllers and recipients in the current vocabulary.. Please complete additional details at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌community/‌dpvcg/‌track/‌issues/‌22/‌edit>.

<axelpolleres> close ACTION-67

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-67.

<axelpolleres> action review finished...

<trackbot> Error finding 'review'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌community/‌dpvcg/‌track/‌users>.

<elmar> action-87?

<trackbot> action-87: Mark Lizar to Make a proposal alternatively use gics instead of nace. -- due 2019-04-11 -- OPEN

<axelpolleres> mark: not only does GDPR need to work outside EU, but also W3C specs should work at internet scale.

<axelpolleres> ... this is an issue.

<axelpolleres> harsh: we mention already that you can use more than NACE.

<axelpolleres> mark: we should acknowledge in the spec that this will evolve.

<axelpolleres> harsh: we don't specify restrictions on the sector code.

<axelpolleres> mark: data controller category ... we need a way to tie data controllers to certain sectors... industry code goes a long way there.

Action: mark to make a concrete proposal along specification of data controller categories by sector in the spec.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - Make a concrete proposal along specification of data controller categories by sector in the spec. [on Mark Lizar - due 2019-06-11].

<axelpolleres> ideally mark an harsh agree on adding an issue.

Action: harsh sends out an email with pointer to the reviewable spec and RDF files by the end of the week to the list for insternal review.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Sends out an email with pointer to the reviewable spec and rdf files by the end of the week to the list for insternal review. [on Harshvardhan Pandit - due 2019-06-11].

<axelpolleres> goal next time is to vote for publishing.

discussing harsh's mail https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dpvcg/‌2019Jun/‌0000.html

<axelpolleres> elmar: I rephrased description of SocialMediaCommunication

<axelpolleres> harsh: agree with changes

<Mark> I like the more general - human - version

<axelpolleres> elmar: the second one is TelephoneRecording vs. VoiceMail, seems to not cover other VoiceRecording

<Mark> voice - text - etc..

<Mark> Direct voice, voice recording, Direct Text, text recording..

<axelpolleres> Axel: let's use CallRecording rather than TelephoneRecording?

<elmar> https://‌docs.google.com/‌spreadsheets/‌d/‌13d1eRXZZBCw84vYGoCJeMU08rzkkzadDzxY3n2iOi8k/‌edit#gid=1356512815

<harsh> A catch-all term would be CommunicationRecording covering both calls and chats

<Mark> is there a reference for this - ? or a policy/law that provides the example

<axelpolleres> Axel: let's have a superclass CommunicationRecording with subclasses CallRecording ChatRecording?

<harsh> No, policies for example would use "call recording"

<harsh> +1 axel

<Mark> for what purpose - ? as a notice ?

<harsh> ChatRecord --> MessageRecording

<Javier> We also miss "video" recording

<Javier> I would say CommunicationRecording with subclasses videoRecording, textRecording, voiceRecording

<harsh> +1 axel

Issue: should we add more subclasses to CommunicationRecording (e.g. distinguishing chats, personalmessaging, videocommunication, telephony, etc.) and which ones?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-23 - Should we add more subclasses to communicationrecording (e.g. distinguishing chats, personalmessaging, videocommunication, telephony, etc.) and which ones?. Please complete additional details at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌community/‌dpvcg/‌track/‌issues/‌23/‌edit>.

<Mark> national jurisdictions are also needed - Now that you mention it

<Mark> there are differences in natonional Data protection law in the EU - using the GDPR

<Mark> nation and location +1

Issue: should we add more specific subclasses like CountryofCitizenship, CountryOfResidence, CountryOfCurrentLocation to Country and which ones?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-24 - Should we add more specific subclasses like countryofcitizenship, countryofresidence, countryofcurrentlocation to country and which ones?. Please complete additional details at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌community/‌dpvcg/‌track/‌issues/‌24/‌edit>.

<axelpolleres> done with Personal Data ...

<harsh> beneficiary in purpose

<axelpolleres> Axel: I would suggest to treat everything which has a comment similar to ISSUEs in the spec

<axelpolleres> Harsh: let's leave the proposed Benefiiciary terms in and mark them.

<Mark> I dont tank it makes sense if a NACE is a purpose sub-class

<Mark> if anything purpose is a sub-class of the Controller Category

<axelpolleres> Hrsh: suggest to remove NACE code example from the spec from the RDF, mention the example in the spec.

<Javier> +1 to remove it from the RDF files, but keep it in the documentation as an example

<elmar> +1

<axelpolleres> purposes done.

<axelpolleres> topid: recipients done.

recipients

<axelpolleres> Javier: recipients is simplistic, but that's what we have so far.

<axelpolleres> ... this is what we have in SPECIAL.

<axelpolleres> Harsh: confusing, but suggest we include them as suggestions welcoming comments to refine.

<Mark> I have to drop -- Great Work !! :-)

<Mark> isn't reciept the controller, processor, joint controller or sub-processor ?

<axelpolleres> Harsh: "same" is particularly confusing.

<Mark> recipient -- not reciept

<Mark> and 3rd party

<axelpolleres> we should have processor and thirdparty, and leave the other ones as suggestions/proposed only

<axelpolleres> +1

<axelpolleres> javier: we should also leave sub-processor in?

<axelpolleres> harsh: we leave it in as coming from GDPR, but as proposed.

<axelpolleres> PROPOED: approve processor and thirdparty as recipients?

<axelpolleres> PROPOSED: approve processor and thirdparty as recipients?

<harsh> +1

<elmar> +1

<axelpolleres> +1

Resolved: approve processor and thirdparty as recipients?

<axelpolleres> What about Controller? Is the controller a recipient?

Issue: Should we explicitly note that the the controller is always a recipient of the data, if not, do we need to make this explicit inth vocabulary, by declaring it?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-25 - Should we explicitly note that the the controller is always a recipient of the data, if not, do we need to make this explicit inth vocabulary, by declaring it?. Please complete additional details at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌community/‌dpvcg/‌track/‌issues/‌25/‌edit>.

<axelpolleres> harsh: this should be that last issue.

<axelpolleres> we should have a document later this week.

Action: bert to review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week.

<trackbot> 'bert' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., bbos, bertv).

Action: bbos to review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-116 - Review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week. [on Bert Bos - due 2019-06-11].

Action: elmar to review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-117 - Review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week. [on Elmar Kiesling - due 2019-06-11].

Action: axel to review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week. [on Axel Polleres - due 2019-06-11].

Action: javier to review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - Review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week. [on Javier D. Fernández - due 2019-06-11].

<axelpolleres> adjourn?

<axelpolleres> adjourned

<axelpolleres> hooray, minutes are out

Summary of action items

  1. Harsh to generate the separate RDF files per namespace.
  2. Axel to review spec and reflection of ISSUES in the spec on next Tue
  3. elmar together with Harsh check comments in spreadsheets (drive-comments and 'comments' column) and how they are reflected in the generated spec
  4. mark to make a concrete proposal along specification of data controller categories by sector in the spec.
  5. harsh sends out an email with pointer to the reviewable spec and RDF files by the end of the week to the list for insternal review.
  6. bert to review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week.
  7. bbos to review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week.
  8. elmar to review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week.
  9. axel to review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week.
  10. javier to review draft spec to be sent by harsh later this week.

Summary of resolutions

  1. approve minutes from last time https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌05/‌23-dpvcg-minutes.html
  2. approve processor and thirdparty as recipients?

Summary of issues

  1. we ask for particular feedback on whether and how to extend the list/taxonomy of controllers and recipients in the current vocabulary.
  2. should we add more subclasses to CommunicationRecording (e.g. distinguishing chats, personalmessaging, videocommunication, telephony, etc.) and which ones?
  3. should we add more specific subclasses like CountryofCitizenship, CountryOfResidence, CountryOfCurrentLocation to Country and which ones?
  4. Should we explicitly note that the the controller is always a recipient of the data, if not, do we need to make this explicit inth vocabulary, by declaring it?
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by Bert Bos's scribe.perl version Mon Apr 15 13:11:59 2019 UTC, a reimplementation of David Booth's scribe.perl. See history.

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/elmar;/elmar:/

Succeeded: s/Azel/Axel/