[RDF] Re: Authorization

[Jonas Liljegren]

Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com> writes:

> I've lost the context for this so my responses may be incomplete...
> 
> I think the whole area of trust modelling is a key application for
> RDF, and one that I plan to explore over the coming months.  Skip to
> [**] below for some (few) thoughts on this.

I just want to think a little about what direction this should take,
so that it will fit with the other parts developed in perallell.


> >I and Stefan have thought and talked alot about systems there you only
> >add information, and that lets anybody say anything. (I think that is
> >a part of the semantic web.)
> 
> That fits my mental model, too.
> 
> >This means that you can say that a previous stating is false.  In your
> >context, the statement is false.  But others may not trust you and may
> >regard the statement as true.
> 
> Yup.  This is one of the ideas that started me thinking about contexts.
> 
> >This leads to the question on what type of statements can be trusted
> >from diffrent staters.  Take for example a list of persons with phone
> >numbers.  There may be a number of people you trust on giving accurate
> >information.  Those persons would in a closed system been given
> >administration access to the database.
> 
> [**]
> 
> I think that this is all information that has to be coded in some way.
> An RDF-based trust assessment framework should also describe its own
> trust model, I think.  I don't think there are any universal answers
> (though there probably will be some useful trust models that will be
> commonly used).

Yes.  I want to find one useful general model suitable for the type of
system I am aiming at.  That is:

The versioning system and the trust system are two aspects of the same
thing.  To trust or not to trust is just one view. Other views is to
see what is stated in diffrent times or from diffrent perspecives or
scenarios.

I am searching for a clean and simple way to implement:

 a) Content in diffrent languages

 b) Diffrent levels of quality

 c) Diffrent groups of staters

And it should wor well with diffrent types of statemets (or groups of
statements) that is suppoesed to override previous ones.

 a) Statement for a diffrent time

 b) Statement for a diffrent perspecitve

 c) Statement as a correction for a previous one


And I want this to be the same thing as the standard information
queries. That is; a request for information includes a context for the
request.  The answer to the request is given within the context.

This is my definition for context withing Wraf.  The context is used
as the base for a information request. It's sot of part of the
request.  It contains your preferences used to select the wanted
language, timeframe, version, inormation source, and more.

The context is a hierarchy of contexts. It starts with the session,
defining the time and place for the conversation.  Here we identifies
the requestor agent and the service.  A specific request adds to the
context.  There can be a series of questions and counter-questions,
all within the context.


The basis for this is implemented in Wraf.  But not yet developed.


The thing here is that the trust model and the other things is part of
the preferences in the context. The preferences of the agent is
overrided by the session preferences and later overrided by the
explicit preferences for the specific request.


So what could we use for model as a testcase for this?  Something
simple and useful for a typical community database.  Maby a use of
ratings to sorting or filtering discussion entries, a little like
slashdot, but simpler?

You could register yourself to diffrent types of groups and the
classification and ratings would belong to those groups.


-- 
/ Jonas  -  http://jonas.liljegren.org/myself/en/index.html