Representing, Proving and Sharing Trustworthiness of Web Resources Using Veracity
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Representing, Proving and Sharing Trustworthiness of Web Resources Using Veracity

on

  • 589 views

We present a methodology for asserting r

We present a methodology for asserting r

Statistics

Views

Total Views
589
Views on SlideShare
415
Embed Views
174

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 174

http://socsem.open.ac.uk 122
http://staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk 31
http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk 20
http://evhart.online.fr 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • There is more an more people contributing content on the Web. In all this big cloud of information, it is very easy to find contradictory data. How can we decide which one is true and which one is false. Assesing trust on the web is fundamentetal A lot of information on the web All this huge amount of data introduces new challenges related in On what to trust an whom to trust.With the size of the web , is very easy to find contradictory information, where is hard to decide which one is true or false
  • What we could say though, is that trustworthiness is not equivalent to trust, and that trustworthiness is not provenance,
  • What we could say though, is that trustworthiness is not equivalent to trust, and that trustworthiness is not provenance,
  • First of all, let’s discuss a little bit about our understanding of trustworthiness. The definition of trustworthiness is not absolute but highly contextual, it encapsulates social and personal concepts such as reputability, popularity, reliability and likelihood
  • Some of this concepts are ambiguous..Assesing trust on the web is fundamentetal A lot of information on the web All this huge amount of data introduces new challenges related in On what to trust an whom to trust.With the size of the web , is very easy to find contradictory information, where is hard to decide which one is true or falseFirst of all, let’s discuss a little bit about our understanding of trustworthiness. The definition of trustworthiness is not absolute but highly contextual, it encapsulates social and personal concepts such as reputability, popularity, reliability and likelihood
  • First of all, let’s discuss a little bit about our understanding of trustworthiness. The definition of trustworthiness is not absolute but highly contextual, it encapsulates social and personal concepts such as reputability, popularity, reliability and likelihood
  • With this requirements in mind, we have introduced a lightweight, decentralised model that enables the assertion of explanatory trust. This model highlights differences among, social trustworthiness, rational trustworthiness, and the sharing of trustworthiness. We have a tripartite model.WithBob says “This information is true !”2.a) Bob says “This information is true” and “You can believe me because I have a proof that I know about it”2.b) Bob says “There is another information that tends to affirms the same (that this information is true)”
  • The term rational trust highlight the contrast between pure social trust and knowledge based trust
  • Is a layered model that allows recursive trust assertions on a piece of information. The knowledge justification sits on top of the social trustworthiness.With this requirements in mind, we have introduced a lightweight, decentralised model that enables the assertion of explanatory trust. This model highlights differences among, social trustworthiness, rational trustworthiness, and the sharing of trustworthiness. We have a tripartite model.WithBob says “This information is true !”2.a) Bob says “This information is true” and “You can believe me because I have a proof that I know about it”2.b) Bob says “There is another information that tends to affirms the same (that this information is true)”
  • Following this model of trustworthiness we have created the veracity ontology which includes the concepts of
  • Option for Alice to evaluate if this proposition is true are:In the first case, Alice just needs to compare if her beliefs match the propo- sition. This case is unlikely since Alice does not actually know anything about the scientist yetThe second case implies that the editor of the information is reliable in general or in the terms of Alice. For example, the editor of the piece may be a well-known historian or a person she trusts personallyThe third case would require Alice too look for information about the author of the proposition that confirms that he knows directly or not about Einstein. In the fourth case, Alice needs to look for external information or a reference that confirms the considered propositionFinally, in the last case,Alice would need to find somebody that knows directly about the topic. This means that she may ask somebody to confirm the proposition written in the Web page. Alice needs to perform a lot of manual tasks in order confirm or not the trustworthiness of information that may not be performed accurately.Moreover, if we consider that Alice could be a software agent, these tasks become impossible as all the techniques rely on subjective judgments in order to work properly.
  • Some of the requirements highlighted by this use case includes: Identify a proposition Describe the trustworthiness of a proposition Identify an agent Provide agent credentials Provide supporting information Security of assertions Reliable assertions No predefined trust assumptions

Representing, Proving and Sharing Trustworthiness of Web Resources Using Veracity Presentation Transcript