[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Triplets on the Internet

• To: "'tpassin@c...'" <tpassin@c...>
• Subject: RE: Triplets on the Internet
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:07:01 -0500
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>

That is the situation that the term 'ontological commitment' (See Gruber et
al) 
was created for.  Ontological systems usually require some form of
verification 
that the intent provided is the intent understood.  Otherwise, is it a
Quality 
of Service (QoS) issue.   Intent-based systems cannot be trusted
mechanically. 
That is why the argument "at Internet scale" is a little misleading.
Systems 
that require accurate information to be transmitted, regardless of whether 
they are ontological or otherwise, rely on reputation management.  This 
can be P2P (a sort of trust keiretsu) or managed (a third party vouches 
for the reputation of the source), or even ad hoc (some test of credibility 
is established for each transaction) or laissez-faire (trust given always 
until the other party defects).  All rely on identity management.

The problem of sense-making is well-known.  Here is the rub:  on occasion, 
the majority will be wrong and the minority or the one will be right.  This 
is where pageRanking and other back-link counters fall apart and that is 
why the 'superstitious acquisition' problem is wicked.  Situation and
context 
help but can't fix the problem for all cases.   If I ask "Does the earth 
revolve around the Sun" in the lifetime of Copernicus, only Copernicus 
gives the 'correct' answer but the 'right' answer is 'no' in the time-frame 
if authorities ranked by links are the metric.  So even combining identity 
management (know the answer is from Copernicus) and knowing the situation 
(in his lifetime) won't get the correct answer if you ask in the situation. 
If you ask "What was the answer in Copernicus' lifetime?", you will get 
an answer that is right and correct.

len


From: tpassin@c... [mailto:tpassin@c...]


> 4) What authority does Fred have to speak about this picture ?
> 5) What authority does Fred have to identify pictures of the summit of
> Everest ?
> 
> Certificates and signing can only really address 1, 2 and 3 and can
> really only partially answer 1 in terms of information held by the
> certificate authority.

There is a whole other aspect, too.  Suppose that you decide that Fred's
credentials are really in order, to what extent can you believe what he
says?  A person can be untrustworthy on one or many subjects even though his
identity is well-established.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Triplets on the Internet
    • From: Danny Ayers <danny666@v...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Triplets on the Internet
• Next by Date: Re: Triplets on the Internet
• Previous by thread: Re: Triplets on the Internet
• Next by thread: Re: Triplets on the Internet
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread