- From: Andrei Sambra <andrei@fcns.eu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:22:33 +0200
- To: public-rww@w3.org
On 10/18/2012 10:39 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: > Excerpts from Melvin Carvalho's message of 2012-10-17 19:30:16 +0000: >> Coralie has suggested that we update the description line of the group, to >> reflect the incorporation of the "Trust" CG into this one. >> >> I was thinking something simple like. >> >> "Using Web Standards to Perform Trusted Read and Write Operations" >> >> How does that sound? >> >> Suggestions / Improvements? >> Trust is a complex notion. If you want to incorporate it into RWW, make sure you ask the right questions so you don't end up sending the wrong message. For example, do all RWW transaction require "trust"? Why? In what circumstances? What are we trusting? Identities? Data integrity? Content? Does it fit with linked data? Are there any trust semantics so far? Andrei >> Background reading: >> >> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ReadWriteLinkedData.html > i wonder about *reputation* aspect of trust... this headline suggest incorporating some kind of WoT techniques as part of access control. but the reputation aspect doesn't sound like fitting somewhere here... > > maybe since i look for reputation in context of economical relations i could just start incorporating it in (still limping) community-io CG? >
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 09:23:21 UTC