W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Trust, Context, Justification and Quintuples

From: Jingwei Huang <jingwei.huang@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:06:37 -0500
Message-ID: <005601c3c652$769b1a00$b700000a@int.novator.com>
To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Mark S. Fox" <msf@eil.utoronto.ca>

Hi, Chris,

I agree with you. Perhaps, the people interesting in the topic should get
together to have a workshop in ISWC or other conferences.

> There really seam to be some people spread around the world working on the
> topic.
> I think there should be more exchange between the different groups. A
> I try to facilitate a little bit by maintaining the Semantic Web Trust and
> Security Resource Guide:
> http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/SWTSGuide/index.htm

Many thanks !

> > A paper on uncertain KP is in revision and will be available very soon.
> >
> Please give me a hint, when it is available.

I will inform you when it's available.

> Reading your paper about Dynamic Knowledge Provenance I'm wondering about
> things:
> 1. Context and role based trust: Your approach relies on explicit trust
> statements (as nearly all approaches within the Semantic Web community).
> real live may trust decisions are based on context and roles. Like "Trust
> all doctors in the medical domain" or "Trust people about web programming
> they have worked for at least 3 web programming projects". This kind of
> stuff I tried to capture with my cQL query language. How to you model
> context and role based trust? Do you use rules for deriving explicit trust
> statements from context and roles?

In our research plan, "Context and role based trust" related issues like
"Authority", are included in our level 4: judgment-based KP. In Library and
Information Science community, internet information resource evaluation
criteria are developed. But most of them are supposed to be used by people.
At this moment, I don't know how far we can go to formalize those criteria
to make them be able to be handled by computers.

> 2. Scaling of trust: In your trusted_truth_value(a,x,v) statements you are
> using the trust scaling of "Trusted", "Untrusted" and "Unkown". For many
> applications I think more fine grained trust scalings are necessary. Lets
> say you have to choose a subcontractor and you think most of them will do
> , but some will deliver better quality. Most theories from social science
> state that trust should be handled as a continuum. How do you handle the
> whole topic of  information ranking?   Is there a general tendency in
> logic-based approaches to skip information ranking? I think there were
> interesting ideas about ranking in [1]. How do Web-of-Trust mechanisms
> more fine grained trust stateings fit into your model?

In Level 3: uncertain KP, we have used "trust degree" to represent uncertain
trust relations, and "certain degree" to represent uncertain truth values.
Uncertain KP paper should be available very soon.

-- Jingwei
Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 12:16:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:48 UTC