bspk / cr_web

Other
0 stars 2 forks source link

Purpose Specification Field #2

Open smartopian opened 9 years ago

smartopian commented 9 years ago

\ Purpose Specification Field ** Alright, here is my first issue/comment/upgrade, for the issue list for the v0.7 edits that we have and In my opinion it is also the biggest one. Purpose Specification is used to specify the scope of the purpose which needs to be “explicit, specified and legitimate”.

At the moment we decided to interpret this by defaulting to create a list. This is not a very good because it requires a list somewhere and still the field is still not well defined. Thus it create a dependency at this early. So, why not define the fields and not default to a list?

For Example: With some categories are mandatory and others as options this can be very powerful: Mandatory

Optional

_With a: --> _ Add + (to add another category to this purpose specification)

The assumption being that each Purpose specification, if externally reference-able, can then be used to turn on and off a preference or purpose from a dashboard or in a service somewhere in the future.

Please let me know how I did with this issue. Happy to answer any question on this or to discuss better ways to make this field awesome.

smartopian commented 9 years ago

* Purpose Specification Field * (2nd Attempt)

Description Purpose Specification has been changed to be described as how to specify the scope of the purpose so as to be “explicit, specified and legitimate”.

Explicit, Specific and Legitimate is interpreted in the MVCR as: 'Naming the Service' and 'Stating the Action' and putting it in a receipt.

Fields This is currently an array of strings. Which I think works for this.

As [Naming services, Action,]

But, the above two fields are mandatory.

Can we add and :

For Example:

  1. The effect of turning a purpose off: Can a string be specified to be on and off so as to have the impact of withdrawing consent for that purpose, or setting a preference (depending on the context)
    Or, Is there a boolean field here instead of a string?

Standard Options to play with for implementations could be: Optional