Re: New Description Line for RWW CG

Excerpts from Andrei Sambra's message of 2012-10-18 09:22:33 +0000:
> On 10/18/2012 10:39 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> > Excerpts from Melvin Carvalho's message of 2012-10-17 19:30:16 +0000:
> >> Coralie has suggested that we update the description line of the group, to
> >> reflect the incorporation of the "Trust" CG into this one.
> >>
> >> I was thinking something simple like.
> >>
> >> "Using Web Standards to Perform Trusted Read and Write Operations"
> >>
> >> How does that sound?
> >>
> >> Suggestions / Improvements?
> >>
> 
> Trust is a complex notion. If you want to incorporate it into RWW, make 
> sure you ask the right questions so you don't end up sending the wrong 
> message.
> 
> For example, do all RWW transaction require "trust"? Why? In what 
> circumstances?
> 
> What are we trusting? Identities? Data integrity? Content?
not sure if i sidetrack on this topic a bit... myself i like to approach all statements on a web as claims, and most of them try to verify somehow before starting to consider them as... let's say 'legitimate'

for example, i can state in my profile that i know Melvin, but unless he states in his that he knows me i wouldn't consider it a mutual friendship. at some point i would like to see some kind of browser extensions which can help with verifying such common claims. similar i can state in my contributions portfolio that i have written major part of linux kernel... but unless 'cannonical' repository of it states same, my claim should get ignored by most people...


> Does it fit with linked data? Are there any trust semantics so far?
> 
> Andrei
> 
> >> Background reading:
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ReadWriteLinkedData.html
> > i wonder about *reputation* aspect of trust... this headline suggest incorporating some kind of WoT techniques as part of access control. but the reputation aspect doesn't sound like fitting somewhere here...
> >
> > maybe since i look for reputation in context of economical relations i could just start incorporating it in (still limping) community-io CG?
> >

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 10:14:27 UTC