@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix edu: <https://knobit.org/def/> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix schema: <https://schema.org/> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .

<https://knobit.org/id/task/dg-policies-standards/C1> a edu:Question ;
    rdfs:label "C1 (2 points)"@en ;
    dcterms:license <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> ;
    schema:hasPart <https://knobit.org/id/register/data-governance#DG-301>,
        <https://knobit.org/id/register/data-governance#DG-302> ;
    schema:identifier "C1" ;
    schema:position 1 ;
    schema:text "The policy conflict, 1 each. (a) PO-004 (customer personal data deleted within 30 days of an erasure request, scope: all personal data in all systems) and PO-005 (transaction records kept for 10 years after the relationship ends) cannot both hold for a customer's payment transactions, which are personal data and transaction records at once. The answer reports the conflict naming both policies - it is invisible in either policy alone. (b) The conflict is sent for a ruling - an open question to both owners, the council or legal - rather than settled by the model. Proposing the usual resolution (erasure does not reach records the bank must keep by law, as GDPR Art. 17(3)(b) allows, written into both scopes) is good, but only if it is marked proposed and raised for a decision. Silently narrowing one policy, or deleting one, earns nothing here."@en .

edu:Question rdfs:label "Question"@en,
        "Küsimus"@et .

<https://knobit.org/id/register/data-governance#DG-301> rdfs:label "dg-policies-standards C1: PO-004 and PO-005 conflict"@en .

<https://knobit.org/id/register/data-governance#DG-302> rdfs:label "dg-policies-standards C1: the conflict is sent for a ruling"@en .