Re: trust models and AWWW (was Re: FYI, tag election links)

On 17 December 2012 01:59, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:

> Melvin,****
>
> ** **
>
> While the TAG might resist picking winners and losers in an unclear
> technology battle as a short-term strategy, I think AWWW suffers because it
> assumes trust too many places. ****
>
> ** **
>
> For updating the AWWW we have, I’ve been thinking somewhat the opposite:
> that we need at least a model and a framework for talking about trust, and
> to encompass the different ways in which trust affects architecture.****
>
>
> > I think what's key is that the AWWW resist pressures to pick winners and
> losers in trust. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Why is this ‘key’?****
>
> ** **
>
> > There should be a loose coupling between the trust system employed and
> web.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> There should be a coupling. Why loose?****
>
> ** **
>
> **Ø  **When trust systems get closely coupled to an architecture, it is
> potentially problematic. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Everything is potentially problematic, why this one in particular?****
>
> ** **
>
> > IMHO it should even be possible to use an 'honor system'.****
>
> ** **
>
> An honor system is a kind of simple trust model. Why not?
>

As a vendor neutral consortium I think the W3C should avoid picking winners
and losers, however a framework that allows different trust models to slot
in, in a clean, modular, way, could be reasonable.

Why in particular for trust?  Because trust pervades almost everything that
we do.  You might think of the 2008 subprime crisis as caused by a failure
in our trust systems ie instruments were marked at trusted (AAA rated) when
actually the models turned out to be highly inaccurate.


> ****
>
>
>  ****
>