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

Re: webid trust model, one or multiple?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 15:07:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4DBF00F7.8070102@openlinksw.com>
To: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
CC: "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
On 5/2/11 1:10 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
> But society thinks it has special rights to define the privacy space. Us has decided that google et al should enforce it (whatever it is) on your behalf. Those who consume websso profiles are governed by google, concerning use and reuse.
>
> The single most important thing trust thing we have to address is ensure multiple idps support your access to sites - and they do not know of each others existence.
>
> This (re) balances the power.
>
> This is where openid ultimately failed. Let's see how webid does.

Yep!

This single step ensures model inversion whereby we become calibrators 
of our own vulnerabilities in cypberspace, at the very least :-)

Kingsley
>
>
> On May 2, 2011, at 5:31 AM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/11 7:44 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2011 20:37, peter williams<home_pw@msn.com>   wrote:
>>>> Is there one webid trust model, or are there to be multiple – because the IX
>>>> about standardizing “a framework” for trust overlays? If it’s a framework, I
>>>> see value in using logical description “enabling” trust metrics,
>>>> generically. These can drive link chain discovery, as usual. It’s criteria
>>>> based search.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Im trying to decide where to spend my time in the next three months. There
>>>> is no point me being involved in something I don’t believe will ever work
>>>> (standardize a single trust metric). I might as well get out the way, if
>>>> this is the group’s mission.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it helps motivate the decision, a realworld user story of handling
>>>> macro-trust issues – at national scale - may be applicable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is just no way I can impose a trust metric on my very local,
>>>> de-centralized customer base – as they network using the social web. They
>>>> will quickly slap me down for even trying, let alone agree with any given
>>>> proposal. They SEEK local variance in trust etc. It’s what distinguishes
>>>> their value, in the subtle “business social networking” scene found in
>>>> selling real-estate to migratory populations, or as folks change lifestyle
>>>> with age, income brackets, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The that scene, one sells trust in “gated communities” to one person, and
>>>> one sells “iron bars on the windows” to another. Some communities measure
>>>> trust in the absence of broken cars in the street, or absence of side-walks
>>>> in country streets; and the realtor will project that value system. Trust,
>>>> safety, confidence, and assurance are all variant terms, that get bandied
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Others communities have more divisive trust measures, often obliquely stated
>>>> or enforced. Somehow the independent realtor as trusted agent has to mediate
>>>> even these issues (which obviously requires  ALOT of social finesse).
>>> I think this paper is an excellent model
>>>
>>> http://www.cdm.lcs.mit.edu/ftp/lmui/computational%20models%20of%20trust%20and%20reputation.pdf
>>>
>>> It basically says there's an element of trust that is subjective and
>>> an element that is observed
>>>
>>> Trust is per individual and per group
>>>
>>> Observed trust can be direct through interaction or observed, or
>>> indirect through reputation of a individual or group, either prior or
>>> propagated
>>>
>>> It's a relatively complex model, but then trust is a hard thing to
>>> model and can get very complex.
>>>
>>> One reason I'm excited about WebID is that it's possible (longer term)
>>> to model complex concepts such as trust as data and ontologies develop
>>>
>>>
>> When all is said an done, this is basically about the power of data access by reference combined with logic based schemas. As I state repeatedly, this is the "holy grail" for those who've grappled with these matters long before the emergence of today's ubiquitous InterWeb.  It is also why the real narrative has to be about how contemporary infrastructure (InterWeb, URIs, and EAV) have emerged to solve some really old headaches.
>>
>> OpenLink built and sold secure ODBC drivers to corporations (still does) on the back of a trust graph based on data containers (files) hosting EAV content using the old INI notation for graphs. It's how we were able sell drivers that handled scenarios like departmental partitioning such that payroll, pensions, 401K data etc. was protected via enterprise specific rules i.e., we gave our customers the infrastructure to implement their own rules etc..
>>
>> Today, WebID enables us to deliver the same functionality via URIs, EAV based Linked Data graphs (RDF and other formats), SPARQL, and user definable trust models (ontologies).
>>
>> Privacy (where vulnerability is calibrated by the vulnerable) is the biggest problem on this planet today, due to InterWeb ubiquity. We now have critical infrastructure in place for addressing this problem head-on.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> President&   CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 19:08:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 May 2011 19:08:00 GMT