- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:34:26 -0400
- To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 10:13 AM -0400 5/24/02, Jeff Heflin wrote: >I didn't mean that Verisign handles trust in general (although their >slogan is "The Value of Trust"), but they do handle trust in identity. I >suppose it was a somewhat loose analogy based on the fact that >certification services (to use the term coined by Pat earlier in this >thread) already exist for some aspects of trust, and similar ideas could >be expanded to general trust on the Semantic Web. Something like >Epinions is another approach, which is based on trust in the majority as >opposed to trust in a particular organization. Both forms of trust have >their strengths and weaknesses. > >Jeff and, in fact, so does virtually every other approach advocated by anyone, anywhere to date -- so instead of looking for THE right approach, we're looking for something that supports all these things as best as possible As I said at the DAML kickoff meeting -- "On the web, there is no `THE' " - JH >"R.V.Guha" wrote: >> >> I thought Verisign only handles the issue of identity, not trust in >> general. So, Verisign can tell me that the entity which claims it is >> Microsoft is the same entity that is registered in the state of Delaware >> ... It really can't tell me whether all that they say on their site is >> true. For that, I doubt whether certificates are relevant at all. I >> suspect we need to use some thing like Epinions version of the Web of >> Trust to duplicate the peer review process found in the scientific >> community. >> >> I do agree with your general point about vocabularies from branded >> organizations being useful. DDC from oclc and SNOMED come to mind ... if >> only we could convince them to drop the license fees ... >> >> guha >> >> Jeff Heflin wrote: >> >> >I disagree. Trust on the Web is commonly handled by digital certificate >> >authorities such as Verisign. I'm proposing an ontology equivalent to >> >such authorities. You can take them with a grain of salt, but they'll >> >give many people a nice warm fuzzy. Just to be clear, I did not suggest >> >that every ontology would have to be approved by an authority (that >> >would certainly go against the nature of the Web). I only meant that >> >ontologies designed for mass public use could benefit from being >> >certified, because that would give users a comfort level without having >> >to double-check that buying into the ontology didn't mean they have to >> >give away their first-born. >> > >> >One other thing, I agree about the danger in staffing such organizations >> >entirely with logicians, they would have to include domain experts as >> >well. >> > >> >Jeff >> > >> > -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 13:34:59 UTC