W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > January 2007

ACTION-52 - Propose text on how corroboration with independent sites should be scoped

From: Timothy Hahn <hahnt@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:18:59 -0500
To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7AB5C724.95D8D5DE-ON85257257.005BF4FE-85257257.005F1F95@us.ibm.com>
Hi all,

I am trying to offer some text for this over-due action item assigned to 
me.

During the 19 December weekly call, I noted that users of 
information/web-sites may need to understand whether or not information is 
coming from distinct information sources (or not) so that they can make 
some value determination on whether the combination of information they 
are looking at is "ok".

Let me try and give some different examples (non-technical) of how we 
trust one another:
 1) blind: If I tell you that my name is Tim - do you believe me?  Maybe.
 2) almost blind:  If I tell you my name is Tim and also tell you that you 
can check with my friend Mary, then you can check with Mary - and so you 
may not have to "trust" just me, quite so much (of course - Mary may be on 
my payroll ... how would you know?)
 3) vouching third party:   If I tell you my name is Tim and also tell you 
that you can check with Sue, who is independent of me, then you can check 
with Sue - and so you may not have to "trust" just me, quite so much (of 
course - you have to somehow convince yourself that Sue and I really 
aren't scheming together. ... how would you know?)
 4) independent third party: If I tell you my name is Tim, and provide you 
some information you can ask someone else about, then you can choose who 
to check with.  So you may not have to trust me quite so much - because 
you get to choose the other party you ask.  Now, you may happen to pick 
someone that I am scheming with ... that would be unlucky.
 5) popular opinion: If I tell you my name is Tim, and tell you to ask all 
your friends, then you can pick a set of folks to check with.  So, in 
order for me to scheme against you, I'd have to be scheming with a set of 
folks, of who I choose who those are. ... You'd have to be really unlucky.

The point I was trying to get across on the call was that the value of 
"independent" information relies on the sources of that information being 
independent.  Unfortunately, that some information is independent is not 
always easy to discern - since a page can be built from information 
gathered from various sources.  Thus, I brought up the term 
"corroboration" - to try and express the need - or for our team to 
consider how to reflect to users what our web user agents can determine to 
be "corroborating evidence" from "independent" sites/sources.

With that background - my proposed text:

On "Note In Scope" page of the note, under "Source Identification" 
sub-section:

"This working group notes that the collection of corroborating information 
from multiple independent sources is important for users in determining 
what entity they are interacting with over the web.  Presenting such 
collected knowledge/evidence, and whether that information is, indeed, 
from independent sources is something this working group may consider."

Having proposed text, I also suggest that ACTION-52 be marked complete.

Regards,
Tim Hahn

Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
phone: 919.224.1565     tie-line: 8/687.1565
fax: 919.224.2530


Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2007 17:19:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:13 UTC