search

uropa-project / uropa

Universal record of processing activities (UROPA) standardized protocol.
21 stars 4 forks source link

Reduce the number of required fields #9

Open milstan opened 2 years ago

milstan commented 2 years ago

Many properties are marked required while they can be optional.

E.g. in the Purpose object isMain is required. As it is a boolean property, it is more apporpriate to define false to be the default, and make the property optional so that isMain:true has to be specified only once, for the main one.

Also in Purpose source is required. It seems to me it could be optional too.

IMHO, many that are required should be in fact optional, for easier usage and more flexibility.

Jabuf commented 2 years ago

Hello @milstan, again, thanks for the feedback.

The logic is that a property should be required only if it's needed for the ROPA to be fully valid. If you think that some should be changed, it's best to see them in a case by case basis.

For isMain this is a tricky property actually. A ROPA need at least one Purpose to be main but can't have more than one. So it would make no sense to have a default value here and it's best to force filling it imo. But we are open to suggestion if you think you have a better idea.

Also, normally all our boolean are supposed to have a default value but we've also defined them as required which seems counter intuitive. We'll change that in the next version.

For the source property of Purpose what do you think @KBKat ?

KBKat commented 2 years ago

Hello @milstan, thank you for your feedback.

We tried to keep the required to the minimum field required, but there are definitively some improvements to make. We studied all EU ROPA templates to define which one should be required or not, and noticed so many differences between their ROPA templates.

For instance, you are right, source should not be required in purpose. It will not be required in next version. We will do a review of the required fields in the next couple of months. If you identify problematic fields, please tell us so we can take it into account.

coolharsh55 commented 2 years ago

Hi. We created a comparison table for the fields from different ROPA templates. You can see that some fields are 'required/present' in some regulators' templates but not others. DPCat - https://w3id.org/dpcat#dpa-ropa-template-analysis would be of help to identify which are common. Also, a lot of these are also contextually conditional, so always required can be changed to conditionally required in some cases, e.g. data transfer outside EU has separate legal bases.

Jabuf commented 2 years ago

Thanks, we will take a look at this.