W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2013

RE: Working without being ambushed by Ambiguity

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:05:29 -0700
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D347221E00F@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>

I noted:
> > Consider defining trust in terms of transfer of belief. Party A trusts party B to
> the extent that if B utters statement S and A receives S, that A's belief state
> changes to include S. If A trust B perfectly, then A believes everything B says. If
> A doesn't trust B at all, then A ignores what B says, or doesn't believe it, in any
> case.

and Graham replied:

> It's true, we are using the word "trust" in different ways.  In my 3-year
> involvement with the EU iTrust working group [1][2], I saw many different
> notions of trust described, but never that one.  There was no total consensus
> about what trust actually meant, but many participants used the term in the
> sense of using trust as an indicator of how they expect some other party to
> behave, or how reliable they regard their pronouncements, in the absence of
> complete knowledge. ...

But 
"how they expect some other to behave" 
is better expressed as
 "how well they expect some other party to keep its promises to behave
   in particular way" 
isn't it?

and
"how reliable they regard their pronouncements" is best explained
by "how much do you believe their pronouncements" 

And I don't think it is necessary to give up on automating representation and
use of trust without requiring a person to do the "trust" analysis.
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 16:06:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:43 UTC