Presenting an Ontology Model of Cyberspace sovereignty: in order to provide a Comprehensive Definition

Rasouli, Hatef; Hasanzadeh, Mohammad; Rahimian, Samaneh

doi:10.22034/jipm.2023.706799

Presenting an Ontology Model of Cyberspace sovereignty: in order to provide a Comprehensive Definition

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

hatef rasouli ¹

Mohammad Hasanzadeh ²

samaneh rahimian ³

¹ PostDos researcher, Department of Information Science and Epistemology. Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares university. Tehran, Iran

² Department of Information Science and Epistemology. Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares university. Tehran, Iran

³ Department of information science and Epistemology, faculty of management and Economics. tarbiat ,modares university. Tehran. Iran

10.22034/jipm.2023.706799

Abstract

Cyberspace is a society that has been formed in the context of information and communication technology. This space has no territorial boundaries and is not governed by a single power. The ability of computer networks to go beyond the modern concept of time and space has significant consequences for governance based on state-nation relations. Due to increasing lack of communication control in cyberspace, traditional methods of governance are weakening. Therefore, issues such as the governance model of the cyber space and governance practices, cyber border guarding, monitoring, control, privacy protection, virtual society structure architecture appropriate to the native society are raised. Also, due to increasing need of people for virtual space, cyberspace sovereignty has become an important part of the governance of real national space. Therefore, the existence of cyberspace sovereignty is necessary and important. This research has been done with the aim of providing a comprehensive and complete definition for cyberspace sovereignty by using ontology tools.
This research is a qualitative research according to different definitions and viewpoints in the field of cyberspace governance, while examining the theoretical foundations of cyberspace sovereignty. Through up-to-date and reliable sources and documents (2004-2022) and using theme analysis method, that important components and themes were identified in the field of cyberspace sovereignty. Based on the themes obtained, the ontology of cyberspace sovereignty was extracted. Finally, a more comprehensive definition of cyberspace sovereignty was provided by organizing entities related to cyberspace sovereignty through the extraction of its ontology.
According to the findings, 17 components related to cyberspace sovereignty have been introduced, which form the entities of the main ontology model of cyberspace sovereignty. Based on the findings, these 17 components are: type of governance, basic principles of governance, legal governance, approaches to cyberspace sovereignty, guiding principles, beneficiaries of cyberspace sovereignty, multi-stakeholder approach to cyberspace sovereignty, governance of digital platforms, cyber space regulation, cyber assets, internet governance, network governance distributed and decentralized, digital economy, thematic areas, digital transformation, digital knowledge and talent, and cyber justice.
The extracted ontology shows the classes and their relationships in the domain of Cyberspace sovereignty basics. Despite the findings of this research and the presentation of ontology based on documents and evidence, a detailed understanding of the domain of cyberspace sovereignty is possible. The extracted ontology has helped in the structural organization of cyberspace sovereignty knowledge and at the same time makes a suitable format for understanding how to use the above knowledge.

Keywords

Anthology

Sovereignty

Cyberspace

Cyberspace Sovereignty

Subjects

Security

تقی‌زاده نائینی، جواد، فاطمه فهیم‌‌نیا و نادر نقشینه. 1398. استخراج آنتولوژی هویت دیجیتال مبتنی ‌بر تحلیل حوزه. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات 4 (34):1669-1700 .

جعفری، افشین. 1398. حاکمیت بر فضای سایبر از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل و نظام حقوقی جمهوری اسلامی ایران. رهیافت انقلاب اسلامی 13 (49): 109-132.

چمنی، ساسان. 1400. تحول در حکمرانی، متأثر از توسعه فضای مجازی. سومین همایش ملی و اولین همایش بین‌المللی حکمرانی متعالی. https://governanceschool.ir/file/download/download/1655292830-1200.pdf?language=fa (دسترسی در 23/11/1401)

خلیلی‌نژاد، سجاد. 1399. مفهوم‌شناسی حاکمیت سایبری. مرکز رشد دانشگاه امام صادق. https://rushd.ir/?p=6940 (دسترسی در 12/10/1401)

صنعت‌جو، اعظم و اکرم فتحیان. 1391. روش‌شناسی طراحی، ساخت و پیاده‌سازی هستی شناسی: رویکردها، زبان‌ها و ابزارها (مطالعه موردی طراحی هستی‌شناسی Asfaont در حوزه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی). فصلنامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی 15 (57): 113-142.

ضیایی، یاسر، و احسان شکیب‌نژاد. 1396. قانون‌گذاری در فضای سایبر: رویکرد حقوق بین‌الملل و حقوق ایران. مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی 57 (34): 227-249.

عالم، عبدالرحمن. 1401. بنیادهای علم سیاست. تهران: نشر نی.

قاضی، ابوالفضل. 1400. حقوق اساسی و نهادهای سیاسی. تهران: میزان.

References:

Berryman, D. 2019. Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, and Methods: Information for Librarian Researchers. Medical Reference Services Quarterly38 (3): 271-279.

Binxing, F. 2018. Cyberspace Sovereignty: Reflections on Building Community of Common Future in Cyberspace. Springer pub. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-0320-3 https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf (accessed Feb. 27, 2023)

Braun, V., & V Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77-101.

Charter of the united nations and statute of the international court of justice. san francisco: the united nations. 1945. https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf (accessed Feb. 7, 2023)

DCAF. 2019. Guide to Good Governance in Cybersecurity. Le Centre pour la gouvernance du secteur de la sécurité: Genève. https://www.dcaf.ch/sites/default/files/publications/documents/CyberSecurityhttps://www.dcafch/sites/default/files/publications/documents/CyberSecurity_Governance_ENG_Jan2021.pdf_Governance_ENG_Jan2021.pdf (accessed Feb. 20, 2023)

De Rosa, F., N. Maunero, L. Nicoletti, P. Prinetto, & M. Trussoni. 2022. Ontology for Cybersecurity Governance of ICT. Italian Conference on Cybersecurity https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3260/paper4.pdf (accessed Mar. 12, 2023)

E-commerce cyber security: An introduction for online merchants. 2020. https://www.getcybersafe.gc.ca/en/blogs/e-commerce-cyber-security-introduction-online-merchants (accessed Mar. 13, 2023)

Fan, Z., C. Tan & X. Li. 2021. A hierarchical method for assessing cyber security situation based on ontology and fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Information and Computer Security 14 (3/4). https://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=114704 (accessed Mar. 13, 2023)

Folsom, T. C .2007. Defining cyberspace (finding real virtue in the place of virtual reality). Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal 45 (9): 75.

Gillespie, T. 2018. Regulation of and by Platforms. J. Burgess (edit,( The Sage handbook of Social Media. Los Angeles & London: Sage.

Helberger, N., J. Pierson,& T. Poell. 2018. Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. The Information Society 43 (1):

Holloway, I., & L. Todres. 2003. The status of method: Flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research 3: 345–357.

Johnson, N., B. Turnbull, T. Maher, & M. Reisslein. 2021. Semantically Modeling Cyber Influence Campaigns (CICs): Ontology Model and Case Studies. IEEE 9: 9365-9382.

Keck, M. 2022. The role of cybersecurity and data security in the digital economy. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f2d7a54b7f75718fa4d2eef/t/62082f066a25c62651a9ae40/1644703527175/EN-UNCDF-Brief-CyberSecurity-2022.pdf (accessed Mar. 18, 2023)

King, N. 2004. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassels, C. and Symon, G, Eds., Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage. 256-270.

Klyton, A. 2018. The multistakeholder model of Internet governance, ICANN, and business stakeholders - practices of hegemonic power. https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/20316/1/van%20Klyton%20%252c%20Arrieta-Paredes%20and%20Soomaree%20%282018%29.pdf (accessed Apr. 2, 2023)

Leininger, M. 1992. Current issues, problems, and trends to advance qualitative paradigmatic research methods for the future. Qualitative Health Research 2: 392–415.

Martins, B. S. 2022. A framework for conceptual characterization of ontologies and its application in the cybersecurity domain. S. software and Systems Modeling 21. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-framework-for-conceptual-characterization-of-and-Martins-Gil/8ddcb6afdc35aba52504fadc3ca1a20b117b348d (accessed Apr. 2, 2023)

Ning, H. 2022. A Brief History of Cyberspace. Oxon: CRC Press.

Noy, N. F. & D. L McGuinness. 2001. Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Stanford: Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report.

Pastuszuk, J., P. Burek, & B. Ksiȩżopolski. 2021. Cybersecurity Ontology for Dynamic Analysis of IT Systems, Procedia Computer Science, Volume 192, Pages 1011-1020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.08.104.

Report of the Working Group on the Internet Governance. 2005. www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf (accessed Apr. 13, 2023)

Ryan G., & H. Bernard. 2000. Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin N., Lincoln Y. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.: 769–802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Security for Digital Transformation. 2021. www.fujitsu.com/be/imagesgig5/cyber-security-for-digital-tranformation_eBook_2021-01.pdf (accessed Mar. 15, 2023)

SyedZareen, Z., A. Padia, T. Finin, & A. Joshi. 2016. UCO: A Unified Cybersecurity Ontology. Conference: AAAI Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Security. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287195565_UCO_A_Unified_Cybersecurity_Ontology (accessed Mar. 6, 2023)

Thorne S. 2000. Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing 3: 68–70.

Zhao, H. 2022. Cyberspace & Sovereignty. China: Harbin Institute of Technology.

Zwart, M. 2018. Keeping the neighbourhood safe: How does social media moderation control what we see (and think)? Alternative Law Journal 43 (4): 283-288.