ISSUE-41 (trust): REPORTED: 4.8 Trust and Ontology

ISSUE-41 (trust): REPORTED: 4.8 Trust and Ontology

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/

Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
On product: 

4.8 Trust and Ontology

>From mail to public-webont-comments by John Yanosy, Motorola.

After briefly reviewing P3P, it appears that a similar concept could be used to share information about trust aspects of an ontology, I am not even sure what these trust aspects are at this time, but I suspect it is worthwhile to think about them at this initial requirements stage. It might be useful when creating an ontology that relies on other ontologies to be able to set some preferences about the trust levels desired with respect to shared ontologies.

Some trust properties might include:

    * reference to trusted third party for ontology integrity
    * responsible party identification for ontology authentication
    * commitment level to maintaining ontology integrity
    * standard or consortium references for ontology
    * signatures for ensuring ontology integrity (Already covered in "Integration of digital signatures") Trust Level - an overall indicator

The issue is an important one, but beyond the scope of this WG. Someone should take the ACTION to write this up for the issues document.

Discussion: Issue needs an owner. Jim responded to the outside poster citing wording in the requirements document that this is important, but outside our scope. DanC was happy with this. What trust means was discussed briefly. Most agreed it was out of scope. Evan and Laurent objected initially to closing the issue. Evan thought there are some important issues regarding trust we should allow in the language. JimH said that the languages allows for "tags it doesn't understand" and that groups of users can agree amongst themselves to use certain tags to represent trust, since RDF lets us refer to expressions themselves and say things about them. Laurent raised the idea of confidence values as a part of the language. Jim seemed to convince him that "saying things about ontologies" was enough, or that more was outside our scope.

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 08:44:05 UTC