- From: Timothy Hahn <hahnt@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:18:59 -0500
- To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF7AB5C724.95D8D5DE-ON85257257.005BF4FE-85257257.005F1F95@us.ibm.com>
Hi all, I am trying to offer some text for this over-due action item assigned to me. During the 19 December weekly call, I noted that users of information/web-sites may need to understand whether or not information is coming from distinct information sources (or not) so that they can make some value determination on whether the combination of information they are looking at is "ok". Let me try and give some different examples (non-technical) of how we trust one another: 1) blind: If I tell you that my name is Tim - do you believe me? Maybe. 2) almost blind: If I tell you my name is Tim and also tell you that you can check with my friend Mary, then you can check with Mary - and so you may not have to "trust" just me, quite so much (of course - Mary may be on my payroll ... how would you know?) 3) vouching third party: If I tell you my name is Tim and also tell you that you can check with Sue, who is independent of me, then you can check with Sue - and so you may not have to "trust" just me, quite so much (of course - you have to somehow convince yourself that Sue and I really aren't scheming together. ... how would you know?) 4) independent third party: If I tell you my name is Tim, and provide you some information you can ask someone else about, then you can choose who to check with. So you may not have to trust me quite so much - because you get to choose the other party you ask. Now, you may happen to pick someone that I am scheming with ... that would be unlucky. 5) popular opinion: If I tell you my name is Tim, and tell you to ask all your friends, then you can pick a set of folks to check with. So, in order for me to scheme against you, I'd have to be scheming with a set of folks, of who I choose who those are. ... You'd have to be really unlucky. The point I was trying to get across on the call was that the value of "independent" information relies on the sources of that information being independent. Unfortunately, that some information is independent is not always easy to discern - since a page can be built from information gathered from various sources. Thus, I brought up the term "corroboration" - to try and express the need - or for our team to consider how to reflect to users what our web user agents can determine to be "corroborating evidence" from "independent" sites/sources. With that background - my proposed text: On "Note In Scope" page of the note, under "Source Identification" sub-section: "This working group notes that the collection of corroborating information from multiple independent sources is important for users in determining what entity they are interacting with over the web. Presenting such collected knowledge/evidence, and whether that information is, indeed, from independent sources is something this working group may consider." Having proposed text, I also suggest that ACTION-52 be marked complete. Regards, Tim Hahn Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS phone: 919.224.1565 tie-line: 8/687.1565 fax: 919.224.2530
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2007 17:19:22 UTC