Dear John, et al.,
I imagine that we are all constrained in what we can and choose to share to some degree: some by corporate NDAs, some by government restrictions, and others by not wanting to reveal too much about their research until their papers and posters are accepted for publication and presentation. Some are probably absent due to personality or might be self-conscious about posting on this list.
I would propose TAXII and related family of products: http://taxii.mitre.org/ as an example of government-private collaboration. The schemas are public, the discussion is in the open, and the repositories are on Github. TAXII serves to help share structured information security data. While the bigger associated projects (STIX, CYBOX, MAEC, etc) use XSD schemas, the community is active in talking about concepts and representation challenges similar to what we discuss here. There is a small subset interested in creating OWL/RDF or CL versions of these standards, but that effort has not gotten a full head of steam. Most of those working with TAXII and the associated projects are information security experts, developers, or DBMs. We would welcome the contribution of ontologists and knowledge representation experts. There are other efforts at least within DHS working to contribute back to the community. On each of those pages you'll see links to discussion forums, documentation, and software repositories.
Given that this is an ontology and not policy or politics mailing list, I propose we refocus off of geopolitics and onto how one reifies and projects onto our models the concepts of privacy, data ownership, information transfer in a way that still allows our systems to reason using privacy-preserving approaches.
Cheers,
Marcos
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
|