Enabling Reputation Interoperability through Semantic Technologies

494 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
494
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Enabling Reputation Interoperability through Semantic Technologies

  1. 1. Enabling Reputation Interoperabilitythrough Semantic TechnologiesRehab AlnemrHPI Research SchoolChair “Internet Technologies and Systems”of Prof. Dr. Christoph Meinel
  2. 2. Quick Agenda2 ! Problem: Why rating is not enough? ! Proposed Model " Reputation Object (RO) Ontology " Formal Model ! What technology to use? " Output format example ! Related References Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  3. 3. Why Rating is not enough? 1. No context3 E-Shop Business Owner/ Relying Party Seller/Factory User
  4. 4. Why Rating is not enough? 1. No context3 E-Shop Business Owner/ Relying Party Seller/Factory Delivery User Service Delayed Package
  5. 5. Why Rating is not enough? 1. No context3 Bad E-Shop Review Business Owner/ Relying Party Seller/Factory Delivery User Service Delayed Package
  6. 6. Why Rating is not enough? 1. No context3 Bad E-Shop Review Business Owner/ Relying Party Seller/Factory Delivery User Service Delayed Package Context excluded from the reputation value " reputation query is too general " key components contexts (i.e. quality aspects) " delivery, quality, price
  7. 7. Why Rating is not enough? 2. Different perceptions4 Different representations, interaction styles and trust rating scales
  8. 8. Why Rating is not enough? 2. Different perceptions4 Isolated reputation communities that have different: " perception of reputation " calculation of reputation " interpretation of reputation " overall reputation – not context related Different representations, interaction styles and trust rating scales
  9. 9. Why Rating is not enough? 3. No portability5 " Starting from scratch for each domain " Cold start problem " No reputation information exchange
  10. 10. Why Rating is not enough? 3. No portability5 " Starting from scratch for each domain " Cold start problem " No reputation information exchange Solution !Unify the representation not the calculation !Facilitate knowledge exchange
  11. 11. Reputation Object Model Representation6 Reputation is the notion of profiling an entity’s performance
  12. 12. Reputation Object Model Representation6 The proposed RO model ! Uses more information about the domain " the contexts and relevant quality criteria ! Using this information, reputation is represented differently " as a developed object ! The Reputation Object profiles an entity’s performance and has knowledge about " contexts " ratings values/reviews/feedback " computation functions " collecting method Reputation is the notion of profiling an entity’s performance
  13. 13. Reputation Object Ontology RO Ontology /)*0)%%17 ;<")%!"3 F !"#$%&("()*+ BCD)E !"#$%&%() 2(55".%)7/57(3%86 5)#6" A$&5%1/%%3,$%" F* ## 34 !&%)7 5)#6" .*//%.(%012 5# 9,/" H* -04# !"#,-)(%-)" FGGGH* >":.3#%() !"#$%&%()* H* 23%"3() +,-".% =&6" !"#$"+8% H* F* H* ." /. !"#7"/% +3<"3K$).%() 9(::,5"4&5$": /" !" (% # 01 $% 2 & &" (" -(34 +3<"3"<4&5$":J:% F* ()* +7 F* "/ % F* 2(6#$%&%()/57(3%86 # !"#$%&%()* H* FGGGH* 4&5$" 2$33")%4&5$" I:%(31J:% ?6"*@%&6#
  14. 14. Reputation Object Ontology RO Ontology /)*0)%%17 ;<")%!"3 F !"#$%&("()*+ BCD)E !"#$%&%() 2(55".%)7/57(3%86 5)#6" A$&5%1/%%3,$%" F* ## 34 !&%)7 5)#6" .*//%.(%012 5# 9,/" H* -04# !"#,-)(%-)" FGGGH* >":.3#%() !"#$%&%()* H* 23%"3() +,-".% =&6" !"#$"+8% H* F* H* ." /. !"#7"/% +3<"3K$).%() 9(::,5"4&5$": /" !" (% # 01 $% 2 & &" (" -(34 +3<"3"<4&5$":J:% F* ()* +7 F* "/ % F* 2(6#$%&%()/57(3%86 # !"#$%&%()* H* FGGGH* 4&5$" 2$33")%4&5$" I:%(31J:% ?6"*@%&6#
  15. 15. Reputation Object Ontology RO Ontology /)*0)%%17 ;<")%!"3 F !"#$%&("()*+ BCD)E !"#$%&%() 2(55".%)7/57(3%86 5)#6" A$&5%1/%%3,$%" F* ## 34 !&%)7 5)#6" .*//%.(%012 5# 9,/" H* -04# !"#,-)(%-)" FGGGH* >":.3#%() !"#$%&%()* H* 23%"3() +,-".% =&6" !"#$"+8% H* F* H* ." /. !"#7"/% +3<"3K$).%() 9(::,5"4&5$": /" !" (% # 01 $% 2 & &" (" -(34 +3<"3"<4&5$":J:% F* ()* +7 F* "/ % F* 2(6#$%&%()/57(3%86 # !"#$%&%()* H* FGGGH* 4&5$" 2$33")%4&5$" I:%(31J:% ?6"*@%&6#
  16. 16. Reputation Object Ontology RO Ontology /)*0)%%17 ;<")%!"3 F !"#$%&("()*+ BCD)E !"#$%&%() 2(55".%)7/57(3%86 5)#6" A$&5%1/%%3,$%" F* ## 34 !&%)7 5)#6" .*//%.(%012 5# 9,/" H* -04# !"#,-)(%-)" FGGGH* >":.3#%() !"#$%&%()* H* 23%"3() +,-".% =&6" !"#$"+8% H* F* H* ." /. !"#7"/% +3<"3K$).%() 9(::,5"4&5$": /" !" (% # 01 $% 2 & &" (" -(34 +3<"3"<4&5$":J:% F* ()* +7 F* "/ % F* 2(6#$%&%()/57(3%86 # !"#$%&%()* H* FGGGH* 4&5$" 2$33")%4&5$" I:%(31J:% ?6"*@%&6#
  17. 17. selection, usage control, cloud service selection, and in a rule-based open reputation system. I also give a summary on formalizing the model and implementation. Four joint publications are submitted and listed in the references section. The Formal Model 1 RO Model Formalism and Implementation8 Definition ROs represents all reputation objects and is defined by: ROs = (A, C, R, range, rep, order), where • A is the set of all the entities that can have a reputation or can be evaluated. • C is the set of criteria/context (relevant category in which a reputation is earned). • range maps the criteria to its possible values, such that: Let P (V ) be the set of all possible values that a criterion/context c ∈ C can have; then range : C → P (V ) • R is the set that contains the relative pairs of (entity, criteria) only, such that: R⊆A×C • rep maps a criteria to its value after a new rating transaction, where rep : R → V such that: rep(a, c) ∈ range(c), a ∈ A • order maps the set of possible values P (V ) to its relevant order and is used in the comparison between two given values in the P (V ) set, where order : C → P (V 2 ) 1.1 Ontology and Implementation Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  18. 18. Which Technology? Used Technology9 ! Developing interoperable reputation objects requires a technology that can: ! structure and standardize reputation info and its relevant data ! enable data integration ! provide ways to relate the data to its semantics Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  19. 19. Which Technology? Used Technology9 ! Developing interoperable reputation objects requires a technology that can: ! structure and standardize reputation info and its relevant data ! enable data integration ! provide ways to relate the data to its semantics Semantic Technologies Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  20. 20. Option 1: RDF graphs RO as RDF graph10 • “Bob has a very good Delivery” • Service Quality=0.87 • Payment.method Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  21. 21. Option 1: RDF graphs RO as RDF graph10 • “Bob has a very good Delivery” • Service Quality=0.87 • Payment.method Table 1: Reputation Statements about Bob Target Criterion Value Bob Service Quality 0.87 Bob Delivery ”very good” Bob Payment <purl.org/goodrelations/v1/MasterCard> 8B(C8 of statements correspond to the RDF statements (or triple) !""#$%%+=&(*%>?-,.": form of: <subject,predicate,object>, where the reputa- 5&67 <(-<$/-A+ tion statement in this case is: <target,context,value>. The same as an RDF graph which is a set of RDF triples, !""#$%%+=&(*%)+,.1+*: reputation statements therefore form a reputation the set of RDF graph.89+*:;<-0"8 Lets assume that we are rating a seller in an e- market identified by <foaf:Person rdf:nodeID="Bob"> then !""#$%%+=&(*%@-:A+/" a simple description of his reputation can be viewed as declar- ing the statements in table 1. If Bob’s servie-quality, deliv- !""#$%%&&&&(()*+,-".(/0% 12%3-0"+*4-*) ery, and payment are identified by URIs as well as the literal Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);and ”very good”, this table corresponds to the values 0.87
  22. 22. Option 2: Ontology for Expressiveness RO Ontology11 ! Developed using Protégé 3.4.4 OWL ! Integration on the implementation layer: Java library ! Vocabulary of RO Ontology: ! to represent an entitys (foaf:Agent) reputation ! an object (ReputationObject) has one or multiple instances of class Criterion or QualityAttribute ! each criterion instance has a ReputationValue (currentValue and historyList) that has a set of PossibleValues (as literals or resources URI) ! a criterion is collected by a CollectingAlgorithm & computed using a ComputationAlgorithm ! Employing also known vocabulary OWL, RDFS, FOAF, XSD, RDF Review, ..
  23. 23. Using Semantic Technologies Goals12 ! enabling reputation information exchange ! facilitate the integration of multiple sources to draw new conclusions, ! connecting data to its definitions and to its context ! achieving reputation interoperability ! Context-aware reputation ! ensuring understandability and reusability of the embedded information Semantic Technologies
  24. 24. PossibleValues, describes the order of the possible values for a criterion OWLList to be able to compare between 2 values PossibleValues, describes the comparison function (i.e. between two Algorithm Output Format in XML/OWL given reputation values) and is used as an alternative to order a dy- namic set of possible values if a static list is not given Criterion or QualityAttribute Applications ComputationAlgorithm 13 Example: A seller Criterion or QualityAttribute RO in e-Markets CollectingAlgorithm Rating type:literal ! Using GoodRelations ontologies to describe a seller and RO ontology to describe its reputation eResponder rule-based agents can Listing 3: Seller’s ROother and can exchange reputation <gr:Reseller rdf:reference=”http://www.example.org/John#” >t-output values of the reputations <ro:hasReputation > <ro:ReputationObject rdf:ID=’’SellerRO1’’> see listing 2). [25] <ro:hasCriteria>mentation of decentralized reputa- <ro:Criterion rdf:resource=’’http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1/ ts interchange and evaluate their DeliveryMethod’’> lso for centralized reputation mod- Criterion 1 <ro:hasReputationValue>standard</ro:hasReputationValue> service nodes act as trusted repu- <ro:collectedBy ro:CollectingAlgorithm=’’#WebPortal’’/> em. The interchanged reputation </ro:Criterion> <ro:Criterion>the internal rule-based decisioning <review:Review>policies of a RuleResponder agent. <review:rating>8</review:rating> Criterion 2 ight give certain rights to a trusted </review:Review> </ro:Criterion> </ro:ReputationObject> </ro:hasReputation >unicate Reputation Objects </gr:Reseller>nt,acl query−ref, QueryRO), The decision rule of a customers’ agent to buy a product ,acl inform−ref, ReceivedRO), (e.g. a book) from a certain seller depends on the rating of
  25. 25. …finally14 Solution !Unify the representation not the calculation !Facilitate knowledge exchange Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  26. 26. …finally14 Solution !Unify the representation not the calculation Reputation !Facilitate knowledge exchange is the notion of profiling an entity’s performance Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  27. 27. …finally14 Solution !Unify the representation not the calculation Reputation !Facilitate ! Developing interoperable reputation knowledge exchange is the notion of profiling an entity’s performance objects requires a technology that can: ! structure and standardize reputation info and its relevant data ! enable data integration ! provide ways to relate the data to its semantics Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  28. 28. …finally14 Solution !Unify the representation not the calculation Reputation !Facilitate ! Developing interoperable reputation knowledge exchange is the notion of profiling an entity’s performance objects requires a technology that can: ! structure and standardize reputation info and its relevant data ! enable data integration ! provide ways to relate the data to its Solution semantics !Semantic Technologies Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  29. 29. …finally14 Solution !Unify the representation not the calculation Reputation !Facilitate ! Developing interoperable reputation knowledge exchange is the notion of profiling an entity’s performance objects requires a technology that can: ! structure and standardize reputation info and its relevant data ! enable data integration ! provide ways to relate the data to its Solution semantics !Semantic Technologies Reputation Object as a semantic knowledge object (not just simple rating) Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  30. 30. …finally14 Solution !Unify the representation not the calculation Reputation !Facilitate ! Developing interoperable reputation knowledge exchange is the notion of profiling an entity’s performance objects requires a technology that can: The model therefore achieves: ! structure and standardize reputation ! the reputation of an entity is more meaningful info and its relevant data ! associated with the context in which it was earned ! enable data integration ! automation of criteria assignment is possible by declaring a relevant resource as aprovide ways to relate the data to its ! criterion Solution ! (ex. URI1 is_a _:criterion) semantics !Semantic Technologies Reputation Object as a semantic knowledge ! one can easily extend these object (not just simple rating)the list of criteria dynamically by adding to contexts/criteria in the reputation objects Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  31. 31. …finally14 Solution !Unify the representation not the calculation Reputation !Facilitate ! Developing interoperable reputation knowledge exchange is the notion of profiling an entity’s performance objects requires a technology that can: The model therefore achieves: ! structure and standardize reputation ! the reputation of an entity is more meaningful info and its relevant data ! associated with the context in which it was earned ! enable data integration ! automation of criteria assignment is possible by declaring a relevant resource as aprovide ways to relate the data to its ! criterion Solution ! (ex. URI1 is_a _:criterion) semantics !Semantic Technologies Reputation Object as a semantic knowledge ! one can easily extend these object (not just simple rating)the list of criteria dynamically by adding to contexts/criteria in the reputation objects Usability? The degree of visibility for these criteria depends on the web site Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  32. 32. Related References15 ! Rehab Alnemr, Adrian Paschke, Christoph Meinel, "Enabling Reputation Interoperability through Semantic Technologies", ACM International Conference on Semantic Systems, Sept 2010. ! Rehab Alnemr, Stefan Koenig, T. Eymann and C. Meinel, "Enabling Usage control through Reputation Objects: A discussion on e-Commerce and the Internet of Services environments", in the special issue of Trust and Trust Management, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 2010. ! Rehab Alnemr, Christoph Meinel,"From Reputation Models and Systems to Reputation Ontologies", Proc. 5th IFIPTM, Springer IFIP, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2011 (to appear) ! Adrian Paschke, Rehab Alnemr, Christoph Meinel, "The Rule Responder Distributed reputation Management System for the Semantic Web", RuleML-2010 Challenge, Washington DC, USA. Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
  33. 33. Ontology’s URL purl.org/ralnemr/ro#Rehab Alnemr(rehab.alnemr@hpi.uni-potsdam.de)

×