DVPCG - List of Issues/Feedbacks for DPV Vocabularies

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J
1	No	Feedback	Notes	Reporter	Link (if available)	Status	Severity	Notes	Suggestion	Responsible Person
2	1	Include a way to indicate PII (Personally Identifiable Information)	This was an input from people at Dativa (Jan Lindquist and Paul Knowles) when Harsh presented the DPV on a recurring hyperledger indy meeting call.	Jan Lindquist & Paul Knowledge (Dativa; via Harsh)	https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpvcg/2019Sep/0001.html		minor	we could resolve those as a flag/subclass. Harsh will provide a proposal on how to address this issue
3	2	Include Blinding Identity Taxonomy (BIT) in personal data categories, or have a suggested mapping to it	This was an input from people at Dativa (Jan Lindquist and Paul Knowles) when Harsh presented the DPV on a recurring hyperledger indy meeting call. Blinding Identity Taxonomy (BIT) is a collection of personal data categories considered PII which they'd like to see aligned or mapped to the DPV categories. See BIT list at https://www.dativa.com/blogs/blinding-identity-taxonomy/	Jan Lindquist & Paul Knowledge (Dativa; via Harsh)	https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpvcg/2019Sep/0001.html	open	?	Harsh will reply to the reporter (Jan Lindquist) and point out to the mechanism in the DPV working draft (ACTION-131)
4	3	Issue in RDF/Ontology: Organise is a subClass of itself	This has resulted from the spreadsheet - where the Organise class has parent class as Organise itself.	Harsh	https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpvcg/2019Sep/0001.html		minor	error from the spreadsheet. easily fixable
5	4	Issue in RDF/Ontology: conflicting definitions of terms	dpv:Credit, dpv:Certification and dpv:Location in dpv.html each have two conflicting definitions. credit differs in parent class	Harsh	https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpvcg/2019Sep/0001.html		minor	error, two definitions of credit, can be easily fixed
6	5	Add rdfs:labels to terms in RDF/Ontology	Adding rdfs labels to all classes - they currently don't have any.	Harsh	https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpvcg/2019Sep/0001.html		minor	easily fixable - copy names
7	6	How to resolve conflicting definitions when adopting the DPV vocabulary?	(was asked in context of SEMANTiCS poster) If an adopter has a term with the same (general) label e.g. fraud detection, but with a different definition than the one provided by the DPV, how should the term be added or resolved?	Harsh			?	use a different name space, for approval in the our terminology, we strongly suggest or will try to keep unambiguous labels, e.g. mark spefific kind of "fraud detection" then it should be labelled as "fraud detection for XYZ" or alike.	suggestion is: make a remark on how to propose extensions in the primer document with the use case that shows how to use this vocvabulary?
8	7	The categorisation of Pseudoanonymisation and Encryption is not (semantically) correct	(from presentation to Kantara CISWG) Anonymisation is a subclass of Pseudoanonymisation which is conflicting in semantics as it specifies anonymisation is a type of pseudoanonymisation, which might not be intended. Also, Pseudoanonymisation and Encryption should not be grouping together (as a concept).	Harsh			?	suggested to start a discussion on this issue.
9	8	Is the ontology actually modular? Can its individual 'components' be reused?	(was asked in context of SEMANTiCS poster) If an adopter wished to only use a certain category of terms, e.g. purposes, can they currently do so without importing the entire OWL2 ontology? The discussion veered towards defining each 'module' as a separate ontology, and using owl:import to bind them together in the 'base' ontology, similar to what SPECIAL does with its vocabularies.	Harsh			minor	we have them now in separate files, but in spearate namespaces, is that enough? It is by intention, we also wrote that in the paper. bring that paragraph from the ODBASE paper into the spec.
10	9	Add parent class information to documentation	Currently, the documentation only lists subclass information. Also add parent class information, e.g. is parent class of ...	Harsh			minor	also add is parent class of... we could do that. would be good to have it scripted for generating the spec.
11	10	Generic document explaining the vocabulary for non-technical audiences	(from presentation to Kantara CISWG). They were referred to the paper draft on public mailing list for the time being, with information that a primer/intro document is planned.	Harsh			?	address this through examples when we have an use-case we can use to demonstrate and explain
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100