W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2003

Re: OWL Security Ontology (plus question)

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:48:36 -0700
Message-ID: <002601c31b02$535e0120$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
Cc: "www-rdf-interest at W3C" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

A few comments on your ontology.

1. I recommend including owl:Thing in your ontology.

2. Occam's Razor suggests using only those classes 
which are necessary in any given situation.
In other words, you may use many different class
hierarchies/lattices, depending on your application.
What is constant is not the hierarchy/lattice, but the
actual things and their properties.  

3. You only have one property, let's call it "securityClassification".
You only have one entity class, "Document".
You have many "extra" classes.

4. The basic class hierarchy of your Security Ontology is simply

    Thing
        Entity
            Document
        Property
            securityClassification
        Statement

Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:19 AM
Subject: ANN: OWL Security Ontology (plus question)


> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> Many thanks to you for answering my questions yesterday.  Using your
> suggestions I have put together a basic security ontology.  Here is a
> pictorial view:
> 
>    http://www.xfront.com/owl/ontologies/security/sld001.htm
> 
> Here is the OWL ontology:
> 
>    http://www.xfront.com/owl/ontologies/security/securityLabel.owl
> 
> And here is a sample instance document:
> 
>    http://www.xfront.com/owl/ontologies/security/Document.xml
> 
> I have a question about the instance document:
> 
> Is it valid?  It shows Document having a property,
> hasUnclassifiedLabel.  But this is not a property of Document, rather of
> UnclassifiedThing.
> 
> I believe that it is valid.  I believe that since it contains the
> hasUnclassifiedLabel property we can infer that the Document must be an
> UnclassifiedDocument.  Right?  /Roger
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 12:52:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:59 GMT