trust and semantic web technologies n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Trust and Semantic Web Technologies PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Trust and Semantic Web Technologies

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

Trust and Semantic Web Technologies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Trust and Semantic Web Technologies. Chris McConnell April 4, 2006. Two Ways to think about Trust. Trust in terms of Web Services Trust (or reputation) on the read/write Web. Trust and Web Services. Trust sits atop Web Services stack Web Services technologies

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Trust and Semantic Web Technologies' - lesley-levy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
trust and semantic web technologies

Trust and Semantic Web Technologies

Chris McConnell

April 4, 2006

two ways to think about trust
Two Ways to think about Trust
  • Trust in terms of Web Services
  • Trust (or reputation) on the read/write Web.
trust and web services
Trust and Web Services
  • Trust sits atop Web Services stack
  • Web Services technologies
  • Needed to protect against malicious users, fraud, flaky business partners.
  • Currently, no standard exists for trust in Web Services, so research is speculative.
how could trust be implemented
How could trust be implemented?
  • Most articles suggest PKI implementations for authentication.
  • As Daconta suggests, current authentication strategies are designed for 1:1 relationships.
  • Web Services rely on complex relationships between services (UDDI, WSDL, APIs) more complex than 1:1
additional barriers to trust
Additional Barriers to Trust
  • As several authors point out, keys are keys and not users.
  • Technological solutions do not guarantee that users are who they say they are.
  • Perhaps the most difficult social construct to implement in software.
an rdf approach to trust
An RDF approach to Trust
  • Uses FOAF and PKI to establish relationships for trusted interactions online.
  • Used to sign RDF documents and establish
  • Uses a third party to authenticate keys.
trust and web 2 0
Trust and Web 2.0
  • Issues of trust in a more explicitly social sphere.
  • The “read/write Web” requires trust - or at least reputation” in order to maintain integrity of information or discussion.
  • In these cases, it’s not a matter of keeping things private, but instead getting assurance about the quality of public information.
  • Reputation is based on feedback from other users.
  • In offline world, reputation is generally informal
  • Online, reputation can be informal or formal.
a formal web 1 5 reputation system
A formal “Web 1.5” reputation system
  • Slashdot uses a “karma” system to rate the reputation of users.
  • When users leave comments on entries, these comments can be numerically rated by moderators.
  • The sum of these moderation scores determines “karma.”
  • Users must reach a particular karma threshold before they can get moderation privileges.
why was this system developed
Why was this system developed?
  • Slashdot discussions rapidly grew out-of-hand, filled with junk posts, spam, and flamebait.
  • Comment ratings allow readers to filter out only the best comments.
  • Moderation privileges first went to users known by administrators, then randomly chosen users, until finally settling on current karma system.
problems with this system
Problems with this System
  • Initially karma was represented as a numerical value.
  • Some users became obsessed with karma: “karma whores”
  • New commenters are often ignored, alienated in the moderation system.
  • Replicates existing Slashdot attitudes, a self-reinforcing system.
reputation on wikipedia
Reputation on Wikipedia
  • Wikipedia does not have a formal reputation system like Slashdot.
  • Leaders of the project want to encourage as much participation as possible.
  • Relies on informal reputation. Contributions to individual articles, participation in Wikiproject, talk pages.
  • Vandals can be banned, have their user accounts frozen
issues for wikipedia
Issues for Wikipedia
  • Information quality: How can we know this is good information if we don’t know the users?
  • Allows anonymous edits, can encourage vandals.
  • “Given enough eyeball…”
  • Reputation is an ancillary issue if many people are checking pages.
seigenthaler incident
Seigenthaler Incident
  • Article on journalist John Seigenthaler accused him of participating in the JFK assassination.
  • Posted by an anonymous user.
  • Article went unnoticed until Seigenthaler publicized the story in the mainstream media.
  • Wikipedia response: barring anonymous users from creating new articles.
other ongoing issues
Other Ongoing Issues
  • Political staffers editing the boss’ article to remove unflattering information.
  • Adam Curry editing “Podcast” article to make it more favorable to him.
  • Articles that receive little attention can have errors that go unnoticed for long periods.
future of trust on wikipedia
Future of Trust on Wikipedia
  • Jimmy Wales has said publicly that he does not believe the project needs a Slashdot-style
  • To improve trust, he says review processes will be expanded.
  • Create “gold” and “dev” versions of Wikipedia.
other issues of trust on web 2 0
Other Issues of Trust on Web 2.0
  • what happens when spam hits a critical mass on social bookmarking systems?
  • Astroturf/FUD blogs. How can blogs be trusted beyond informal social reputation?
  • Gaming Digg, etc.