Advertisement

Towards a Reference Ontology of Trust

  • Glenda AmaralEmail author
  • Tiago Prince Sales
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
  • Daniele Porello
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11877)

Abstract

Trust is a key component of relationships in social life. It is commonly argued that trust is the “glue” that holds families, societies, organizations and companies together. In the literature trust is frequently considered as a strategic asset for organizations. Having a clear understanding of the notion of trust and its components is paramount to both trust assessment and trust management. Although much progress has been made to clarify the ontological nature of trust, the term remains overloaded and there is not yet a shared or prevailing, and conceptually clear notion of trust. In this paper we address this issue by means of an in-depth ontological analysis of the notion of trust, grounded in the Unified Foundational Ontology. As a result, we propose a concrete artifact, namely, the Reference Ontology for Trust, in which we characterize the general concept of trust and distinguish between two types of trust, namely, social trust and institution-based trust. We also represent the emergence of risk from trust relations. In addition, we make a comparative analysis of our Reference Ontology to other trust ontologies. To validate and demonstrate the contribution of our approach, we apply it to model two application examples.

Keywords

Trust Ontological analysis Unified foundational ontology 

Notes

Acknowledgment

CAPES (PhD grant# 88881.173022/2018-01) and OCEAN project (UNIBZ).

References

  1. 1.
    Azevedo, C.L.B., et al.: Modeling resources and capabilities in enterprise architecture: a well-founded ontology-based proposal for ArchiMate. Inf. Syst. 54, 235–262 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barber, B.: The Logic and Limits of Trust, 1st edn. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick (1983)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model, vol. 18. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cross, F.B.: Law and trust. Georgetown Law J. 93, 1457 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dokoohaki, N., Matskin, M.: Effective design of trust ontologies for improvement in the structure of socio-semantic trust networks. Int. J. Adv. Intell. Syst. 1(1942–2679), 23–42 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gambetta, D., et al.: Can we trust trust. In: Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, vol. 13, pp. 213–237 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gerstl, P., Pribbenow, S.: Midwinters, end games, and body parts: a classification of part-whole relations. Int. J. Hum.-comput. Stud. 43(5–6), 865–889 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giorgini, P., Massacci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: Modeling social and individual trust in requirements engineering methodologies. In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11429760_12CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golbeck, J., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Trust networks on the semantic web. In: Klusch, M., Omicini, A., Ossowski, S., Laamanen, H. (eds.) CIA 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2782, pp. 238–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45217-1_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Telematica Instituut/CTIT (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guizzardi, G.: The role of foundational ontologies for conceptual modeling and domain ontology representation. In: 7th International Baltic Conference on Databases and Information Systems, pp. 17–25. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R.A., Guizzardi, R.S.S.: Grounding software domain ontologies in the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO). In: 11th Ibero-American Conference on Software Engineering (CIbSE), pp. 127–140 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, R.S.S.: Towards ontological foundations for conceptual modeling: the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) story. Appl. ontology 10(3–4), 259–271 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., Falbo, R.A., Guizzardi, R.S.S., Almeida, J.P.A.: Towards ontological foundations for the conceptual modeling of events. In: 32nd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER), pp. 327–341. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guizzardi, R.S.S., Guizzardi, G.: Ontology-based transformation framework from TROPOS to AORML. In: Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering, pp. 547–570. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huang, J., Fox, M.S.: An ontology of trust: formal semantics and transitivity. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Electronic Commerce: The New E-commerce: Innovations for Conquering Current Barriers, Obstacles and Limitations to Conducting Successful Business on the Internet, pp. 259–270. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A.: Trust as a social reality. Soc. Forces 63(4), 967–985 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luhmann, N.: Trust and Power. Wiley, Hoboken (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 709–734 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGuinness, D.L., Ding, L., Da Silva, P.P., Chang, C.: Pml 2: A modular explanation interlingua. In: ExaCt, pp. 49–55 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harrison McKnight, D., Chervany, N.L.: Trust and distrust definitions: one bite at a time. In: Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) Trust in Cyber-societies. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2246, pp. 27–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45547-7_3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moyano, F., Fernandez-Gago, C., Lopez, J.: A conceptual framework for trust models. In: Fischer-Hübner, S., Katsikas, S., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) TrustBus 2012. LNCS, vol. 7449, pp. 93–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32287-7_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pribbenow, S.: Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations. In: Green, R., Bean, C.A., Myaeng, S.H. (eds.) The Semantics of Relationships. Information Science and Knowledge Management, vol. 3, pp. 35–50. Springer, Dordrecht (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rotter, J.B.: A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. J. Pers. 35(4), 651–665 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., Camerer, C.: Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 393–404 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sales, T.P., Baião, F., Guizzardi, G., Almeida, J.P.A., Guarino, N., Mylopoulos, J.: The common ontology of value and risk. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 121–135. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sales, T.P., Guizzardi, G.: “Is it a fleet or a collection of ships?”: ontological anti-patterns in the modeling of part-whole relations. In: Kirikova, M., Nørvåg, K., Papadopoulos, G.A. (eds.) ADBIS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10509, pp. 28–41. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66917-5_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tyler, T.R.: Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Viljanen, L.: Towards an ontology of trust. In: Katsikas, S., López, J., Pernul, G. (eds.) TrustBus 2005. LNCS, vol. 3592, pp. 175–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11537878_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williamson, O.E.: Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. J. Law Econ. 36(1, Part 2), 453–486 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glenda Amaral
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tiago Prince Sales
    • 1
    • 2
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
    • 1
  • Daniele Porello
    • 2
  1. 1.Conceptual and Cognitive Modeling Research Group (CORE)Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.ISTC-CNR Laboratory for Applied OntologyTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations