As a followup thought, I'd like to share an expectation I've had for
the year or so since I joined this list, one unclear can ever
materialize. I have no doubt representatives of the National
Security community are on this list (rightly and appreciatively so)
and, knowing personally about the levels of funding drenching that
community for the past dozen years, I wanted to be aware of the
'give back' that community would now provide to open citizenry, its
direct investors and clearly its most primary stakeholders. So I
want to ask in a general way, what ontologies have been
developed by this community, what can be shared, with us? Anything
about privacy (asked with no tongue in cheek)?
Even more pointedly is that the National Institute for Standards
& Technology should have an inventory of the ontologies (being)
developed in-house to all government agencies. Why do I sense this
level of information, integration and facilitation, is simply absent
from the work here?
This site is beginning to seem a bit like a charade to me. (charade:
an absurd pretense intended to create a pleasant or
respectable appearance). I'd rather that not be the case
for many many reasons. Thanks for any response/jmc
On 1/17/2014 10:21 AM, John McClure
wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
All isn't over, I am pretty confident about that, as long as
humans are involved. Folks just need to wake up!
So true and I think an effective contribution would be to create
an Ontolog-branded ontology for Privacy.
I'm hearing people talk about two different kinds of Privacy. One
concerns information NOT communicated to another -- implanted bugs
and a personal journal are mentioned -- for which there is a
presumptive expectation of non-disclosure byf its owner. This type
of privacy out of scope on this forum in my opinion, as valid and
important as it most definitely is, because otherwise we may walk
into a cul-de-sac that turns people here off. More fruitful would
be to develop a mechanism that promotes transparency and
accountability when data owners' stated privacy expectations
are not met by those with whom the data owner has communicated the
protected information.
An ontology for representing those expectations seems
appropriately calibrated to the mission of Ontolog.net. One that
can be referenced within this text:
Facebook Term of Service (emphasis added)
"You own all of the content and information you post on
Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy
and application
settings.
In addition: For content that is covered by intellectual
property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you
specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application
settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable,
sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP
content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP
License).
The present situation is like the dawn of telephony -- we're all
talking on a party-line, with zero expectation of privacy, now
it's time to create an SS7 protocol for the Internet, if you will.
In the meantime, I'll leave hardware matters to others who have
more sway than the soapbox we have here.
/jmc
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|