- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:52:41 -0400
- To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>, <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: Benoit Carcenac <benoit.carcenac@mondeca.com>
Rigo and Bernard - thanks for your comments. We will get back to you with responses -Jim Hendler At 17:33 +0200 5/6/03, Bernard Vatant wrote: >Well, I was just about to send a comment along the same general lines, the >notion of "rights" in OWL. In real-world applications, one will need the >built-in ability to manage rights of access and edition on the information, >based on users profiles, definition of workspaces, and the like. > >Of course the rights on any given OWL class or individual can be defined by >a specific property in a specific ontology, but it would maybe good to have >a generic built-in property "owl:Rights" used to assert that information on >such class of objects will be available only to such class of users. > >This is something that can be somehow achieved in Topic Maps software by an >ad hoc interpretation of "scope" elements - although such an interpretation >of scope is left to the application. > >Bernard Vatant >Senior Consultant >Knowledge Engineering >Mondeca - www.mondeca.com >bernard.vatant@mondeca.com > > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : public-webont-comments-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-webont-comments-request@w3.org]De la part de Rigo Wenning >> Envoye : mardi 6 mai 2003 15:45 >> A : Dan Connolly >> Cc : t-and-s@w3.org; public-webont-comments@w3.org >> Objet : Re: privacy in OWL >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 09:53:12AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >> > If you have any comments on it, please send them >> > to public-webont-comments@w3.org >> >> >> Comment on Privacy in Web-ont >> >> It is honorable, that the Webont Working Group thought about >> including something about Privacy into their guide. >> >> <for the impatient> >> As usual in privacy, nearly everybody is aware of potential >> privacy issues or has some kind of bad conciousness about it. >> In the absence of real solutions, this bad consciousness is >> discharged by some rather general privacy warning. The result is >> that implementers of OWL will share bad consciousness, but lack a >> solution. >> >> The good news is, that there might be some remedy. The remedy >> lies in OWL itself, as the approach is mainly based on metadata. >> The P3P Specification WG has thought about integrating the P3P >> semantics into the Semantic Web. For this reason -in cooperation >> with the RDF IG- a RDF-Schema representing P3P was developed[1]. It >> might be good to reference this schema and verify, whether it is >> importable into OWL (or what is missing/has to be changed, >> to make it importable). This way, OWL-Ontologies treating persons >> would be able to also include those persons' preferences. This >> way, the inference engine can respect those preferences (or >> policies attached to an individual). >> >> In the future, we might want to use the preference-language >> APPEL[2] but I'm actually not able to determine if it would >> better fit into OWL. >> </for the impatient> >> >> I would suggest the following text. You can still change it as >> you like: >> >> OWL's ability to express ontological information about >> individuals -even appearing in multiple documents-, it's >> support for linking of data about individuals from diverse >> sources in a principled way may raise privacy issues. >> Privacy, by it's definition, protects individuals. Only if >> dealing with natural persons, one must be aware of the privacy >> implications. Goal is to protect against the disclosure of >> sensitive personal data but also against the creation of profiles >> making the individual and it's personality completly transparent >> to others. If we talk about privacy, we want to the opaqueness of >> someones personality and intimacy to the outside world. This can >> be overturned by the individual's will to disclose information. >> As a consequence, there is a need for the individuals kept in an >> ontology to be able to express their preferences. This can be >> done using the RDF-syntax for P3P [link] or APPEL [link]. >> >> In particular, the ability to express equivalences using >> owl:sameIndividualAs can be used to state that seemingly >> different individuals are actually the same. >> Owl:InverseFunctionalProperty can also be used to link >> individuals together. For example, if a property such as >> "SocialSecurityNumber" is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, then >> two separate individuals could be inferred to be identical based >> on having the same value of that property. When individuals are >> determined to be the same by such means, information about them >> from different sources can be merged. This aggregation can be >> used to determine facts that are not directly represented in any >> one source. >> >> The ability of the Semantic Web to link information from multiple >> sources is a desirable and powerful feature that can be used in >> many applications. However, the capability to merge data from >> multiple sources, combined with the inferential power of OWL, >> does have potential for abuse. Users of OWL should be alert to >> the potential privacy implications. >> >> >> >> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/p3p-rdfschema/ >> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P-preferences/ >> >> Best, >> >> -- >> Rigo Wenning W3C/ERCIM >> Policy Analyst Privacy Activity Lead >> mail:rigo@w3.org 2004, Routes des Lucioles >> http://www.w3.org/ F-06902 Sophia Antipolis >> >> -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 12:52:51 UTC