Open coolharsh55 opened 3 years ago
The specific jurisdiction should get its own separate extension to model its concepts e.g. legal basis. This is 'best practice' to prevent potentially several complex labels from being presented with every DPV concept. This issue has been modified to instead motivate the creation of dpv-iso
for providing the following:
This can be made part of Issue #31 regarding mappings to other vocabularies. Here, ISO terminology is considered a vocabulary on its own.
The DPV terminology is based on that used by the GDPR (reflection of its conception). In order to make it easier to use the DPV for specific jurisdictions, tables for alignments or mappings can be provided that specify how concepts correlate between different jurisdictions. These mappings can be semantic based (e.g. subclass, SKOS matching) or simply alternate labels (where equivalent, provide labels for specific jurisdiction or notation). Extensions (e.g. DPV-GDPR) would be where the respective assertions are housed. e.g. (showing various possibilities)