1 / 18

Trust and Semantic Web Technologies

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

patia
Download Presentation

Trust and Semantic Web Technologies

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Trust and Semantic Web Technologies Chris McConnell April 4, 2006

  2. Two Ways to think about Trust • Trust in terms of Web Services • Trust (or reputation) on the read/write Web.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Reputation • Reputation is based on feedback from other users. • In offline world, reputation is generally informal • Online, reputation can be informal or formal.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. Other Issues of Trust on Web 2.0 • del.icio.us: 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.

  18. Discussion

More Related