Hello John, (01)
I second that. National security very likely currently is the biggest adopter
of RDF and related technologies. I can hardly imagine that this will stay so
forever so I do not have a problem with those technologies. (02)
There should be many ways for the general public to profit from that work
without harming security or even the profits of the companies involved. (03)
Maybe adoption of these technologies would be more widespread if people
were not reluctant to talk of the successful use cases in national security?
Unless they are totally evil, of course ;-) (04)
Regards, (05)
Michael Brunnbauer (06)
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:06:41AM -0800, John McClure wrote:
> 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 <https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=privacy> and
> > application settings
> > <https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications>.
> >
> > 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
> > <https://www.facebook.com/privacy/> and application settings
> > <https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications>: 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
> >
> (07)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (08)
--
++ Michael Brunnbauer
++ netEstate GmbH
++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++ 81379 München
++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
++ E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
++ http://www.netestate.de/
++
++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel (09)
pgpdco59zhtJa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|