- From: Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:14:00 +0100
- To: jfernand@wu.ac.at, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>, Javier D. Fernández <javier.fernandez@wu.ac.at>, "Ekaputra, Fajar Juang" <fajar.ekaputra@tuwien.ac.at>
- Cc: public-dpvcg@w3.org
Hello. +1 for priv as the namespace As for having two flavours (RDFS + OWL2), the best way would be to declare everything using both. E.g. ODRL defines its concepts as both RDFS and OWL2 Class. The question for discussion is whether we want these as two separate vocabularies - one RDFS and one OWL2 and what (dis-)advantages this provides. On 10/12/18 9:41 AM, Javier D. Fernández wrote: > Hi all, > > I have to confess that I always have problems with the dpvcg acronym (I > hope I'm not the only one :). Can I suggest to look for a more > comprehensible namespace? Just to give a first seed, what about "priv"? > It's short, it reminds of "privacy" and it is quite close to the > well-know prov, so people would remember it (and it does not exist, > http://prefix.cc/priv). > > On a different note, I come from the area of indexing/compressing RDF > and my skills on ontology engineering skills are rather basic. But could > it be possible to present a proposal with two flavors, RDFS with the > taxonomy and OWL2 with further restrictions and expressivity? > > Best, > > Javier > > > On 09/12/18 21:11, Harshvardhan J. Pandit wrote: >> Hello all. >> >> Regarding namespace, we can get a w3id with the prefi dpvcg and host >> it at one of our institutes for the time being while we wait to see >> whether we can have space provided by w3c. >> If we need further classification for namespaces: >> * dpvcg-psdata (personal data is too long) >> * dpvcg-purpose >> * dpvcg-process >> * dpvcg-sec (security) >> * dpvcg-storage >> >> language to model: Ideally for a taxonomy, RDFS is sufficient. >> However, I would propose OWL2 (expressivity discussion needed?) as it >> allows us to further develop axioms and constraints w.r.t to the data >> model. >> >> However, this can be daunting to adopt/use by non-semweb people (both >> academia and industry), who may only wish to use it as a taxonomy. >> Therefore, I would suggest that at some point we also think about >> usability/adoption of this work. >> >> I would suggest creating different ontologies for each 'thing' >> (purpose, storage, etc.) we are looking at and then merging them as >> required. This would be easier to develop and maintain (w.r.t. >> different people acting on it). >> >> Regards, >> Harsh >> >> On 04/12/18 11:36 AM, Data Privacy Vocabularies and Controls Community >> Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> dpvcg-ACTION-53: Together with harsh, fajar, javier start on a base >>> ontology, suggest a namespace, etc. and start populate the >>> sub-taxonomies, agree on language to model it. >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/community/dpvcg/track/actions/53 >>> >>> Assigned to: Axel Polleres >> > -- --- Harshvardhan J. Pandit PhD Researcher ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin https://harshp.com/
Received on Monday, 10 December 2018 09:14:24 UTC