Small comments
All,
The
attached is a revised trust draft that incorporates pieces of Frank’s text
and items for continuing discussions. I specifically added a section
on trust related to a Delegate, and I included ideas Frank included in his
write-up. I specifically did not include Goal Adoption because I think it is
unnecessary and confusing as currently described; my response to Frank’s
Additional Comments email goes into my rationale. See some
related comments below.
Note,
I modified the Trust & Risk diagram (Figure 2) to include using
Reputation for assessing Trust and Risk because otherwise Reputation is
simply defined but not used.
In
specific response to Frank, see <KL> as follows:
<Frank_email>
Some
comments...
1. The diagram should
say that an actor participates in a joint action. You can’t participate in
an action; you perform one.
<KL>
Agree
and Figure 1 now contains two variants from which we can
choose.
</KL>
2.
The definition of willingness is somewhat circular.
Wikipedia
uses this definition:
Willingness:
the state of being willing.
Willing: Ready to
do something that is not (can't be expected as) a matter of
course.
Ready: Prepared for
immediate action or use
However,
I think that we mean something slightly different:
Willingness:
an internal commitment to participate in a joint action.
<KL>
The
Trusting Actor is willing to perform an action that is usually expected to
be part of a Joint Action, but this can happen independent of (and
certainly, prior to) Willingness on the part of other
actors.
Still
needed: text elaborating relationship between Joint Action and
interaction.
</KL>
There
is another point that I think is important for SOA:
There
is a presumption of willingness based on participation in joint actions. The
fact that an actor participates in a joint action may be taken as evidence
that the actor was willing to do so. I.e., we do not try to model coercion in our model
of willingness. This evidence of willingness ultimately becomes the
foundation for non-repudiation: evidence of participation is evidence of
willingness, which in turn is evidence for non-repudiation.
<KL>
My
initial inclination was to agree with this, but I have reservations.
Phishing is an example where participation is not willingness in terms of
the actual RWE. Also, willingness is only explicit for RWE known to the
Trusting Actor and not necessarily for RWE that is not publicly documented
or otherwise known. Thus, the connection to non-repudiation is
tenuous.
</KL>
3.
The Trust and Willingness diagram draws a trust relationship between actors.
I think that they are both inherently ternary relations: trust about some
action/outcome. I think that actors assess the evidence to determine their
stance to risk and trust.
We
have tended to focus Real World Effect on the effects of service actions: I
ask you to do something. But reputation may necessarily have a much broader
basis (hearsay, government intervention, etc.)
<KL>
Agree
and conveying that idea is certainly intended.
</KL>
4.
I do not think that we need to go into chains of trust. For the same reason
that we don't do much of service composition.
<KL>
That
was in your proposed text. I tried to incorporate this more fully in
the latest revision. See the comment that I included in the
text. The range of discussions and examples point to the need for
three distinct write-ups: (1) a concise model for trust, (2) a separate
discussion of how trust affects interaction, especially composite
interactions, and (3) more detailed discussions about the processes and
mechanisms involved. (1) is what I am working here, (2) should
probably be an addition (if necessary, after PR2) to the interaction
write-up, and (3) are separate documents outside the scope of the RA but
hopefully elaborations that can build on the RA foundation.
</KL>
5. Consequences
of Assessing Trust and Risk repeats earlier stuff.
<KL>
Moved
to section 3.x.x.1 and condensed.
</KL>
6. Trust and SOA: cut down
and move to the beginning.
<KL>
I
didn’t move this because I think it requires the discussion of trust and
risk before it makes sense. However, I’m open to specific
suggestions.
</KL>
</Frank_email>
Hopefully,
this will enable us to move forward.
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr.
Kenneth Laskey
MITRE
Corporation, M/S
H305
phone: 703-983-7934
7515
Colshire
Drive
fax: 703-983-1379
McLean
VA 22102-7508