W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2011

Re: WebID-ISSUE-13 (bblfish): Develop a logic of trust

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:22:17 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTin6cTP+XnA-WPUssGZ0mtPL9WjGG86AXO3349ni@mail.gmail.com>
To: WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
On 30 January 2011 12:32, WebID Incubator Group Issue Tracker
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> WebID-ISSUE-13 (bblfish): Develop a logic of trust
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/13
> Raised by: Henry Story
> On product:
> It would also be good to have a serious logic of trust.
> This cannot be a deliverable, as it is certain to be a huge academic undertaking. But one could start
> with some very useful rules of thumb. With enough such rules one could start to work out what a minimal trust logic is going to be.
> So say I trust <http://friends.va/jesus#me> for a particular  task, or to access certain specific resources.  Someone logs into my server I don't know, proving he is<http://judas.com/#me>
> with a claim in his Profile  that
> <http://judas.com/#me> owl:sameAs <http://friends.va/d/judas#x>.
> Should I believe it? Well not like that, if I care at all. But if
>   http://friends.va/d/judas
> says
>   <http://friends.va/d/judas#x> owl:sameAs <http://judas.com/#me> .
> And if it happens that <http://friends.va/jesus> (the document) states that
> @prefix rel: <http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/>
> <http://friends.va/jesus#me> rel:closeFriendOf  <http://friends.va/d/judas#x>.
> Then I have confirmation of the relationship I need to give access.

FWIW Google's Social Graph API has some basic pieces of this logic: a
notion of transitivity, following "rel=me" across sites (and some FOAF
version too, though possibly buggy), plus a kind of skepticism
structured in terms of reciprocal claims. If my homepage claims a
youtube page as mine, and vice-versa, that's taken as being somewhat
more reliable than an unverified link.

This kind of 'claim graph analytics' is well worth investigating. Most
of the formal attention around RDF so far (OWL etc) has focused on
simple flat collections of triples, rather than on figuring out how to
deal with different parties and documents making competing and
supporting claims.



Received on Sunday, 30 January 2011 14:22:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:21 UTC