W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2004

Re: towards trusting the semantic web RE: Spamming a URI

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:05:48 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: charles@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

At 20:54 22/09/04 -0400, charles@w3.org wrote:
>Yep. I think some people have been around this wheel a few times. I am
>wondering if anyone has done a recent state of the art?

FWIW, I recently surveyed [1] papers from the last two iTrust [2] 
conferences  on Trust Management in Open Systems [3,4].  The data is still 
very raw, basically N3, but the namespace prefixes and other header info 
aren't defined yet, but may be of some interest.  Currently, there is a 
(quite low) level of semantic web awareness in this community, judging from 
the papers alone.

[1] http://www.ninebynine.org/iTrust/iTrust-survey.n3

[2] http://www.itrust.uoc.gr/

[3] http://www.itrust.uoc.gr/conf2/

[4] http://www.trustmanagement.clrc.ac.uk/

The EU SECURE project [5] is also doing some very interesting work in this 
space -- they have a framework that maps a very theoretical logical 
framework to running code, all developed within the project.

[5] http://secure.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/

I hope to post some notes of my own about this work in the not-too-distant 
future.  I note they have also done some work on proof carrying assertions


At 20:54 22/09/04 -0400, charles@w3.org wrote:

>Josh wrote
> > ...There are many types of
> > assurance -- some people might trust something based on the source
> > domain name, others might require a PGP signature, and so on.  The level
> > of assurance you want depends on the nature of the data.  Also, you can
> > imagine scenarios where the trust is much more transitive...
>Yep. I think some people have been around this wheel a few times. I am
>wondering if anyone has done a recent state of the art?
>I wrote a very brief presentation exploring some steps people have taken -
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/0822-eze but it is in spanish.
>Roughly it looked at the idea that Annotea introduced some trust by having
>password control over who posted annotations, and keeping information
>about that, at EARL's notion that an assertion has to include who made it
>and when (in the context of conformance assertions - Josh's example of
>Microsoft commenting on an IBM product is exactly the use case) and at the
>fact that provenance tracking is clearly something that is seen as a need
>in any serious system designed for the open semantic web.
>I know there is other stuff done within W3C. I know of the mindswap stuff
>and Tom Croucher's interest there.
>Chris Bizer maintains a nice list of annotated pointers to interesting
>resources at http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/SWTSGuide/ and
>there are various bits of stuff around proposing how trust can be handled,
>or is handled.
>I'm wondering if anyone this year has tried to collect that information
>and turn it into a written "this is what people are doing or talking about
>at the moment". And in an ideal world, has done some comparison of the
>various benefits and trade-offs in the approaches and the implementations
>(an approach might be great for managing the information, but if nobody
>knows how to build an interface there is at the very least some more work
>to be done).

Graham Klyne
For email:
Received on Monday, 27 September 2004 16:31:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:53 UTC