W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > October 2000

RE: DAML-ONT: the case for closedness

From: Hart, Lewis <lhart@grci.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:30:13 -0400
Message-ID: <09A65DF294F8D311AAB000105A02DBAF0163E766@thumper.va.grci.com>
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
"Jeff Heflin" wrote:
 
>"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
>> 
>> If some other modeller wants to augment the
>> properties of a primitive class then I don't see why this should not be
>> allowed.  Of course this other modeller can get into trouble by adding
>> properties that should not be there, but I don't see that the goal of a
>> modelling language is to prevent modellers from doing wrong things, nor
>> do I see that there is any way of preventing such mistakes in any case,
>> even if that was desired.
>> 
>
>True, there is no way to prevent modellers from doing wrong things, but
>it would be nice if we could prevent one modeller from screwing up the
>world for everyone else. We don't want some kid in the Phillipines to
>create an ontology that breaks or changes the meaning of the globally
>agreed to "E-commerce ontology,"

To me the definition of 'globally agreed to' means a specified version
of the ontology, as given by its URL, which everyone who cares knows
about. The kid in the Philippines could publish whatever he wants, but
it doesn't mean anyone will use it. If an author intends to use the
agreed to meanings, then they must reference the appropriate defining
ontology:

<rdf:RDF
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns:daml="http://www.w3.org/2000/08/daml-ont#"

  xmlns:EC="http://www.e.commerce.org/standards/ontology#"

  >
  <EC:Purchase_Order>
    ... blah blah blah
  </EC:Purchase_Order>
</rdf:RDF>

If a different ontology (say xmlns:EC="http://hackers.net/ontology") is
referenced,
then you do not necessarily know what is meant. You may or may not trust it.

>
>We want to prohibit poor or worse yet, malicious extensions,
>while allowing beneficial ones.
> 

The real issue here, in my view, are the already known security issues like
spoofing the official site, usurping official site traffic, telling search
engines you are the official site and etc... Authentication of source and
content using information assurance techniques is the solution to these
types of issues, not the ontology language. 

I must agree that it would be nice to close the meaning of a term in some
general sense, but it would be difficult (if not impossible) to guarantee.
The web just doesn't work that way.

- Lewis
___________________________________________
Lewis L Hart 
GRC International                      lhart@grci.com
1900 Gallows Rd.                  Voice (703)506-5938
Vienna, Va 22182                    Fax (703)556-4261
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 14:30:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:37 GMT