RE: more text / Trust bipolar decision or continuum

Note my section 4 is there mainly for Pat to trash and start over.

I tend to think that an approach which permits you to trust (yes/no) a
number of named graphs of your choice gets close to the continuum approach
that is clearly a more accurate model of how people operate. e.g. as my
level of paranoia goes up I will trust fewer graphs. This is then reflected
in a classic logic with just t/f

Jeremy



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Bizer [mailto:chris@bizer.de]
> Sent: 16 March 2004 14:59
> To: Patrick Stickler
> Cc: phayes@ihmc.us; Jeremy Carroll; www-archive@w3.org
> Subject: Re: more text / Trust bipolar decision or continuum
>
>
> We tend to see trust as a bipolar decision by an agent. You trust
> a graph or
> you don't trust it. This conflicts with the view of the majority of trust
> researchers, who see trust as a continuum.
>
> See quote from one of my documents below:
> "There is a wide range of different trust definitions known from
> physiology,
> sociology, economic science and computer science. There is no general
> agreement on the term "Trust". A comparison of the different views on the
> topic and the different trust definitions can be found in [Marsh94] and
> [Gambetta00]. Following Joseph M. Reagle [Reagle02], we define trust as:
> Trust (worthiness) is the degree to which an agent (human or machine)
> considers information to be true for a given time and context.
> Our definition refers to the following aspects of trust:
> -There is uncertainty in trust situations, which cannot be
> eliminated. It is
> only possible to minimize uncertainty.
> -Trust is subjective. Different users have different views of the
> world and
> different subjective trust requirements in the same situation.
> -Trust depends on the context and changes over time.
> -Trust in a continuum and no bivariate property. "
>
> This conflicts with what we write in  Chapter 4:
>
> "The meaning of a set of named graphs depends on a separate decision about
> which of the graphs to accept. We represent this decision as a set A of
> nodes naming the accepted graphs. The meaning of a set of accepted named
> graphs hA,Ni is given by taking the graph merge Sa2A N(a), and then
> interpreting that graph using the semantics of RDF[?]. Any extension
> semantics of RDF can be used; in this paper we uniformly use those of OWL
> Full[4]."
>
> I totally agree with Jeremy, that for practical reasons we should have a
> bipolar view on trust in the context of the Semantic Web at it's current
> state of development. But the interesting question is: Is this
> bipolar view
> required for RDF semantics or OWL to work or can we be open to
> agents using
> continuum based trust models (modal logic ??) ?
>
> I don't mandate, that we should include this stuff in the paper, but it
> would be nice if our approach wouldn't exclude future agents that
> might use
> continuum based trust models (and will have the unlimited processing power
> to reason based on these models :-). In addition it would make
> our work less
> attackable for the trust community.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 10:49:10 UTC