Advertisement

Rule-Based Trust Assessment on the Semantic Web

  • Ian Jacobi
  • Lalana Kagal
  • Ankesh Khandelwal
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6826)

Abstract

The Semantic Web is a decentralized forum on which anyone can publish structured data or extend and reuse existing data. This inherent openness of the Semantic Web raises questions about the trustworthiness of the data. Data is usually deemed trustworthy based on several factors including its source, users’ prior knowledge, the reputation of the source, and the previous experience of users. However, as rules are important on the Semantic Web for checking data integrity, representing implicit knowledge, or even defining policies, additional factors need to be considered for data that is inferred. Given an existing trust measure, we identify two trust axes namely data and rules and two trust categories namely content-based and metadata-based that are useful for trust assignments associated with Semantic Web data. We propose a meta-modeling framework that uses trust ontologies to assign trust values to data, sources, rules, etc. on the Web, provenance ontologies to capture data generation, and declarative rules to combine these values to form different trust assessment models. These trust assessment models can be used to transfer trust from known to unknown data. We discuss how AIR, a Web rule language, can be used to implement our framework and declaratively describe assessment models using different kinds of trust and provenance ontologies.

Keywords

Resource Description Framework Trust Management Trust Assessment Trust Category Resource Description Framework Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Artz, D., Gil, Y.: A Survey of Trust in Computer Science and the Semantic Web. Web Semantics 5, 58–71 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Primer: Getting into RDF and Semantic Web using N3 (2005), http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T., Connolly, D., Kagal, L., Scharf, Y., Hendler, J.: N3Logic: A Logical Framework For the World Wide Web. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bizer, C., Cyganiak, R.: Quality-driven information filtering using the WIQA policy framework. Journal of Web Semantics 7, 1–10 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Ioannidis, J., Keromytis, A.: The KeyNote Trust Management System Version. Internet RFC 2704 (September 1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C Recommendation (February 2002), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema
  8. 8.
    Chu, Y.-H., Feigenbaum, J., LaMacchia, B., Resnick, P., Strauss, M.: REFEREE: Trust management for Web Applications. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29(8-13), 953–964 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dai, C., Lin, D., Hwang, J., Kantarcioglu, M.: An Approach to Evaluate Data Trustworthiness Based on Data Provenance. In: Jonker, W., Petković, M. (eds.) SDM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5159, pp. 82–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2008), doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85259-9_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao, Q., Houben, G.-J.: A Framework for Trust Establishment and Assessment on the Web of Data. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2010, pp. 1097–1098. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gil, Y., Ratnakar, V.: Trusting Information Sources One Citizen at a Time. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 162–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Golbeck, J., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Trust Networks on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of Cooperative Intelligent Agents, pp. 238–249 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hogan, A., Harth, A., Polleres, A.: SAOR: Authoritative Reasoning for the Web. In: Domingue, J., Anutariya, C. (eds.) ASWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5367, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kagal, L., Hanson, C., Weitzner, D.: Using Dependency Tracking to Provide Explanations for Policy Management. In: IEEE Policy 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kagal, L., Jacobi, I., Khandelwal, A.: Gasping for AIR: Why we need linked rules and justifications on the Semantic Web. Technical Report MIT-CSAIL-TR-2011-023, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (April 2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuter, U., Golbeck, J.: SUNNY: a new algorithm for trust inference in social networks using probabilistic confidence models. In: Proceedings of the 22nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1377–1382. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, N., Grosof, B.N., Feigenbaum, J.: Delegation Logic: A Logic-based Approach to Distributed Authorization. ACM Transactions on Information Systems Security (TISSEC) 6(1) (February 2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liau, C.-J.: Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems–A modal logic formulation. Artificial Intelligence 149, 31–60 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Lacy, J.: Decentralized Trust Management. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Privacy and Security (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGuinness, D.L., Ding, L., da Silva, P.P., Chang, C.: PML 2: A Modular Explanation Interlingua. In: AAAI 2007 Workshop on Explanation-aware Computing (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moreau, L., Plale, B., Miles, S., Goble, C., Missier, P., Barga, R., Simmhan, Y., Futrelle, J., Mcgrath, R.E., Myers, J., Paulson, P., Bowers, S., Ludaescher, B., Kwasnikowska, N., Bussche, J.V.D., Ellkvist, T., Freire, J., Groth, P. (eds.): The Open Provenance Model (v1.01) (2008), http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/16148/1/opm-v1.01.pdf
  22. 22.
    Richardson, M., Agrawal, R., Domingos, P.: Trust Management for the Semantic Web. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 351–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sahoo, S.S., Sheth, A.: Provenir ontology: Towards a Framework for eScience Provenance Management. In: Microsoft eScience Workshop (October 2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Straccia, U., Lopes, N., Lukacsy, G., Polleres, A.: A General Framework for Representing and Reasoning with Annotated Semantic Web Data. In: AAAI (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W3C OWL Working Group. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Jacobi
    • 1
  • Lalana Kagal
    • 1
  • Ankesh Khandelwal
    • 2
  1. 1.MIT CSAILCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations