storing "data transparency" in consent records

[Peter Schober]

* Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> [2018-05-28 17:29]:
> I was just suggesting condtional logic in the templates, but you
> basically said that's your alternative, so yes.

Right, so I'll follow up on the users list about how to label entities
with e.g. "isRandS" or "infoOnly" or whatever (possibly following the
example Keith shared a while back) and then look at getting at those
variables from within velocity (possibly via springConext).
Metadata-driven config flags will heavily factor into this, I guess.

> > That may be simpler for deployments, or it may not (no new flows, but
> > still new beans to be defined, so maybe same difference, effort wise).
> 
> I think it will be simpler in practice but if there's something else
> we need to do, we can do it. If it's just a case of adding some
> legalistic metadata so to speak to the storage record, no big deal.

Amending the existing storage record (to differentiate between, say,
"consent" and "transparency duty") would only be necessary if a UI
were available, or if the APIs existed to access those records to
build such a UI.
(I doubt someone will implement a Consent Manager based on an
decidedly undocumented format.)

-peter