Semantic Web Applications - Graham Klyne

woodruffpassionateInternet and Web Development

Oct 21, 2013 (3 years and 11 months ago)

76 views

iTrust Survey

Graham Klyne

Nine by Nine



http://www.ninebynine.net/

8 October 2004

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

2

Goals of this talk


Reviewing iTrust activity


exemplified by conference papers


Looking for multidisciplinary results


what are the contributions from

non
-
computing disciplines?


Is there any overall “shape” of new
understanding coming from iTrust work?


System implementation perspective


what guidance is offered?

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

3

iTrust


“The aim of iTrust is to provide a forum for
cross
-
disciplinary

investigation of the
application of trust as a means of establishing
security and confidence

in the
global
computing infrastructure
, recognizing trust as
a crucial enabler for meaningful and mutually
beneficial interactions.”


http://www.itrust.uoc.gr/


(my emphasis)

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

4

Method


Read through all main papers in LNCS
proceedings of first two public iTrust
conferences


48 papers


Not including short papers


Summarize content of each paper


attempt to reflect content, not evaluate


Pick out key themes in each paper


subjective, subject to differing views

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

5

Method (continued)


Data collected using a variant of RDF (N3)


http://www.ninebynine.org/iTrust/iTrust
-
survey.n3

About Notation3:


http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html


http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html


Auto
-
generated summary document


http://www.ninebynine.org/iTrust/iTrust
-
survey.html


Processed using simple rules
(using CWM)


http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html


Reviewed summaries looking for themes

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

6

Raw data:

Multidisciplinary themes


Computing
-

39 papers


Economics
-

8 papers


Legal
-

4 papers


Philosophy
-

1 paper


Logic
-

1 paper


Psychology
-

4 papers


Sociology
-

8 papers


Statistics
-

6 papers

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

7

Raw data:

Other recurring topics


Privacy
-

4 papers


Reputation
-

12 papers

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

8

Raw data:

Computing + topic


Computing + Economics
-

6 papers


Computing + Legal
-

2 papers


Computing + Philosophy
-

1 paper


Computing + Psychology
-

3 papers


Computing + Sociology
-

5 papers


Computing + Statistics
-

4 papers


Computing + Privacy
-

4 papers


Computing + Reputation
-

11 papers

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

9

Raw data:

Paper topics not spotted


Political science


Informing public policy formation?


Business/management

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

10

Defining trust


23 different definitions found


Two economics papers used the same definition!


Common themes:


Subjective


Expectation or belief about another’s behaviour


Related to specific context


Risk of trusting behaviour


Basis for decision with incomplete information


Based on past evidence

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

11

Observations


Very few papers without a strong
computing element


Many papers about computing with input
from some other discipline(s)


Reputation/recommendation systems lead
use of trust in implemented systems


A strong strand of economic theory
informing reputation systems

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

12

More observations


Conference papers are not the whole story


Work in logic of trust is not yet connecting
with systems using trust


Having existing computational models
makes us better able to employ socio
-
cognitive work?


Traditional computer security view of trust
as an atomic proposition, rather than
something to be analyzed


8 October 2004

iTrust survey

13

Observations about trust


Computing with trust necessarily (?)
ignores many subtleties


The 1994 PhD thesis of S. Marsh seems to
be seminal in computation of trust


“First transaction” trust is challenging


Reduced importance of specific identity


Recommendation/reputation systems


consensus to separate trust in some action from
trust in recommendation

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

14

Some specific observations (1)


The social aspect of trust is only lightly
acknowledged by computing systems


cf. lncs2995_266_276, lncs2995_146_160


Modelling goodwill, community vs individual
benefit?


Different approaches to trust with and
without 3rd party participation


cf. lncs2692_17_32, lncs2692_46_58

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

15

Some specific observations (2)


Trust may be at the cost of privacy


cf. lncs2995_108_119, lncs2995_108_119


Empirical data concerning human trusting
behaviour is patchy


cf. lncs2692_165_178, lncs2995_206_220


Two clusters of trust definitions


rational (expected benefit)


social (moral duty, etc)


cf. lncs2995_266_276



8 October 2004

iTrust survey

16

On the Web


This presentation (PPT and PDF)


http://www.ninebynine.org/iTrust/iTrustSurvey.ppt


http://www.ninebynine.org/iTrust/iTrustSurvey.pdf


Raw survey data (Notation3 and HTML)


http://www.ninebynine.org/iTrust/iTrust
-
survey.n3


http://www.ninebynine.org/iTrust/iTrust
-
survey.html


Survey processing rules (Notation3)


http://www.ninebynine.org/iTrust/TrustRules.n3


Processed survey data (Notation3)


http://www.ninebynine.org/iTrust/TrustResults.n3

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

17

Further activity


Creating iTrust resource page, links for:


Papers


Tutorials


Presentations


Software


Projects


Please send me your URLs!


gk
-
itrust@ninebynine.org


(or: iTrust mailing list)

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

18

Discussion


Are there other major themes?


Most results directed to computing professionals?


Is trust more than just another technique for
achieving security?


Economic/sociological input seems focused on
reputation/recommender systems?


Can/should computing with trust recognize its
social subtleties?


Can trust sustenance be fully decentralized?


How do other fields influence technical designs?

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

19

Notes


Simon: taking metaphors from human
trust to inform system designs is useful.
Richer models are useful for organizations
coming to terms with trust.


Reno: trust is different from security.
Security is source of Trust. Trust has to
cope with a (novel?) environment. Trust
is needed when there are risks. Re.
Subtleties “the devil is in the detail”.
Difficult to reduce the complex model and
ignore other parts.


Moral and rational reasons: even in this
case there is a strict link between them;
not always possible to distinguish; e.g.
why don’t the economic/game theory
models cope effectively with trust
problems? They deal only with rational
elements, but humans aren’t entirely
rational.


Andrew J: the function of rich (and?)
formal models. Aims at conceptual
analysis, to achieve clearer understanding
of complex concepts. Construction should
not be constrained by computation. Then
move on from conceptual level to
computational level, which does involve
simplification … but this way it is clear just
what is being simplified. This is to be
preferred to starting from a naïve informal
description and going straight to a
computable model. Thus, formal models
are bridge from intuitive understanding to
computation.


Stefan: w.r.t. FIPA(?) agent standards. Model
developers and companies developing code.
Industry is impatient and has huge inertia (!).
They understand conceptual models are a Good
Thing, but don’t put resources into them. Lack of
people who want to follow the process through:
specify conceptual model, understand it, and
follow through into real engineered systems.
There is a perception that conceptual models are
too hard for ordinary engineers.


Theo: … develop very rich models, but don’t have
time (?) to determine if they’re realizable.
Practioners tend to treat models as specifications
rather than guidelines. … building systems
bottom up … re social/logical models: question is
not whether whether they are realizable, but what
they give us.


Stefan: any approach is flawed, none is ideal.
Need to try several.


Peter H: computer scientists always try to bring
things (models) into their computers. [Maybe..
Computer scientists need to learn to put down
their computers?]


Simon… that’s (putting trust inside my computer) is
going too far

8 October 2004

iTrust survey

20

Third iTrust conference


http://www
-
rocq.inria.fr/arles/events/iTrust2005


Paper deadline: 25 November 2004


Tutorials, demos later


Conference: 24
-
26 May 2005


Tutorials 23 May 2005


This is the last conference of the present
iTrust series… please join in and get
people excited!