[ba-unrev-talk] Fwd:Some Issues of Trust (was RE: [xml-dev] URI indigestion)
Snippet of a dialog going on at XML-DEV... (01)
>From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Sure, but TimBL didn't invent that. It shows
>up all over Demming et al. It is the fundamental
>problem of sustaining an organization and of
>keeping it efficient by not overloading it with
>tracking software that the humans quickly
>learn to outwit. If you have to track them
>in that detail to get them to work, you are
>in the wrong business or they are.
>No, the problem of trust has to rely on
>being able to assert tests. That is the
>ontological commitment thing that came
>up last year. And to agree to the tests.
>A lot of government work based on contract
>deliverables is determined by creating,
>documenting, and authoritatively signing
>the tests. That works for procurement.
>Is it a general approach to the semantic
>web? Maybe for some kinds of ontologies,
>but I think we will end up with recognized
>authoritative assertions; eg, the scholastic
>method of establishing credentials, and even
>then, it will only work insofar as a body
>of corroborating work exists. For some
>ontolologies, we will have to classify them
>as speculative, merely opinion, possibly
>misinformed and so on. Trust metrics will
>be a mixed bag based on other metrics: criticality,
>knowledge stability, and so on.
>There is no substitute for an admin module
>to vette intel.
>From: Danny Ayers [mailto:email@example.com]
> >The semantic web cannot escape the problem of
> >identifying the "preferred reading". Humans
> >can't either.
>Nope, but the web can already help a bit, and a bit more metadata and agents
>that can use it should help enhance that.
>Old TimBL note, mentions trust :
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ (02)