Advertisement

Sociotechnical Trust: An Architectural Approach

  • Amit K. Chopra
  • Elda Paja
  • Paolo Giorgini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6998)

Abstract

Current approaches in sociotechnical systems consider trust to be either cognitive—referring to actors’ mental models of each other—or technical—referring to an actor’s trust of a technical artifact. In this paper, we take a more expansive view of trust: in addition to the cognitive, we also consider trust in the architectural sense. Broadly, architectural trust applies at the level of roles. Our principal claim is that sociotechnical systems are essentially specified in terms of architectural trust. Whereas previous work has considered dependencies between actors as a fundamental social relation, we claim that no dependency can exist without the corresponding architectural trust.

Keywords

Multiagent System Social Trust Trust Relationship Technical Trust Prospective Participant 
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.
    Credit card accountability responsibility and disclosure act of (2009), http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-627
  2. 2.
    Asnar, Y., Giorgini, P., Massacci, F., Zannone, N.: From trust to dependability through risk analysis. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pp. 19–26 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castelfranchi, C., Tan, Y.-H.: The role of trust and deception in virtual societies. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6(3), 55–70 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Standing Committee on The Food Chain and Animal Health. Food law implementation guidelines. World Wide Web electronic publication, January 2010, Lastchecked (December 2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chopra, A.K., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Modeling and reasoning about service-oriented applications via goals and commitments. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 113–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chopra, A.K., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Modeling and Reasoning about Service-Oriented Applications via Goals and Commitments. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 113–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dewsbury, G., Sommerville, I., Clarke, K., Rouncefield, M.: A Dependability Model for Domestic Systems. In: Anderson, S., Felici, M., Littlewood, B. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2788, pp. 103–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giorgini, P., Massacci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: Requirements engineering for trust management: Model, methodology, and reasoning. International Journal of Information Security 5, 257–274 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haley, C., Laney, R., Moffett, J., Nuseibeh, B.: Using trust assumptions with security requirements. Requirements Engineering 11, 138–151 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones, S., Wilikens, M., Morris, P., Masera, M.: Trust requirements in e-business. Communications of the ACM 43(12), 81–87 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lipner, S.: The trustworthy computing security development lifecycle. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pp. 2–13 (December 2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mead, N.R., Jarzombek, J.: Advancing software assurance with public-private collaboration. IEEE Computer 43(9), 21–30 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siena, A., Armellin, G., Mameli, G., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A., Susi, A.: Establishing regulatory compliance for information system requirements: An experience report from the health care domain. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 90–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh, M.P., Chopra, A.K., Desai, N.: Commitment-based service-oriented architecture. Computer 42(11), 72–79 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Strens, R., Dobson, J.: How responsibility modelling leads to security requirements. In: Proceedings of the New Security Paradigms Workshop, pp. 143–149 (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: From system goals to software architecture. In: Bernardo, M., Inverardi, P. (eds.) SFM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2804, pp. 25–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amit K. Chopra
    • 1
  • Elda Paja
    • 1
  • Paolo Giorgini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of TrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations