We should start early to collect material for the Safety, Security, and Data Protection section of the "Data Provenance Metadata Version 1.0" specification.
I have already some boilerplate we can add for the JSON specific parts and also some dusty guidance for XML.
In addition, we should also guard implementers and other users of the standard from forgetting about the responsibility that comes with any representational system in that it inherits the obligations from the "reality" it represents.
My proposal is:
Any safety, security, and data protection requirements of the context in which data-provenance documents are used, have to be translated to and upheld by data-provenance implementation and processes.
Here, data-provenance is a stand-in for what we agree on naming these "instances", where people describe the data provenance of datasets based on our specification.
Or, we could phrase that as:
All safety, security, and data protection requirements relevant to the context in which data-provenance documents are used must be translated into, and consistently enforced through, data-provenance implementations and processes.
Not sure about the final comma though 🙈
We should start early to collect material for the Safety, Security, and Data Protection section of the "Data Provenance Metadata Version 1.0" specification.
I have already some boilerplate we can add for the JSON specific parts and also some dusty guidance for XML.
In addition, we should also guard implementers and other users of the standard from forgetting about the responsibility that comes with any representational system in that it inherits the obligations from the "reality" it represents.
My proposal is:
Here, data-provenance is a stand-in for what we agree on naming these "instances", where people describe the data provenance of datasets based on our specification.
Or, we could phrase that as:
Not sure about the final comma though 🙈