Re: New Description Line for RWW CG

On 18 October 2012 12:13, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>wrote:

> Excerpts from Andrei Sambra's message of 2012-10-18 09:22:33 +0000:
> > 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?
> not sure if i sidetrack on this topic a bit... myself i like to approach
> all statements on a web as claims, and most of them try to verify somehow
> before starting to consider them as... let's say 'legitimate'
>
> for example, i can state in my profile that i know Melvin, but unless he
> states in his that he knows me i wouldn't consider it a mutual friendship.
> at some point i would like to see some kind of browser extensions which can
> help with verifying such common claims. similar i can state in my
> contributions portfolio that i have written major part of linux kernel...
> but unless 'cannonical' repository of it states same, my claim should get
> ignored by most people...
>

Yes these are important points.  But for the moment just wanted to
concentrate on Coralie's request for a description .

Not quite sure how to reach consensus, tho no one has really expressed a
strong opinion.  Id be happy to go with Kingsley's suggestion.

Note also some interesting comment from Larry Masinter who says trust
should be core to AWWW

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Oct/0089.html


>
>
> > 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?
> > >
>
>