[WG-UMA] Definition of "Trust" (borrowing from TCG)
mark at smartspecies.com
Thu Mar 3 14:57:11 EST 2011
I just skimmed this doc and found it faintly useful for this
discussion of Trust. I highly recommend getting Piotr Cota's book as
it is very technically detailed and is useful for developing a trust
framework meta-model as it technically discusses all of the elements
and their relationships for what we are proposing with a trust
Trust has 17 different basic definitions. I think for the most part
we use trust in relation to the definition where expectations exist
between the AU and the AM. In this context I would suggest that the
term confidence, or reliance is used instead of trust.
as for Trust Relationships referred to here in UMA is this referring
to a technical trust between technical actors?
With my sociologist hat on, I am of the opinion that the intent of a
trust framework for identity is so that it can be trustworthy for the
management of identity in society. IF this is true than we should
avoid mixing the technical trust, with the social trust as this may
lead to creating a significant challenge to any effort to create a
meta model of trust frameworks.
When possible I suggest using the term control or confidence instead
of trust in the technical context we are applying it to here. E.g.
a confidence framework can be developed so that it is trustworthy..
I found this table of contents and foreward summary of Piotr's book.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186826 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-uma/attachments/20110303/2fc65cc3/attachment-0001.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
On 3 Mar 2011, at 18:00, Rainer H?rbe wrote:
> I would like to add that to write trust frameworks we might go ahead
> without elaborating the definition of trust, because trust is
> derived from the duties and sanctions in law and contract.
Can you point me to a reference for this statement?
> trust is derived from the duties and sanctions in law and contract.
> A good paper on this view is "Trust: A concept too many"
> Credit for this title to Jane Winn.
> - Rainer
> Am 03.03.2011 um 18:49 schrieb Mark Lizar:
>> I would even go a bit further and say trusted is usable for technical
>> trust and trustworthiness usable for social trust.
>> This reminds me of a passage from the book "Trust, Complexity and
>> Control: Confidence in a Convergent World" written by Piotr Cofta.
>> global trust expert)
>> " There are two trusts (i.e. Trust and control)
>> What is called trust here can be related to the intrinsic properties
>> of a person while 'control' roughly relates to contextual properties.
>> What we call here as control can be also know as control trust,
>> reliance trust, assurance based trust, calculus trust, guarded trust,
>> deterrence-based trust or cognitive trust. In contrast, 'trust' is
>> known as party trust, affective trust, identification-based trust,
>> relational trust or extended trust.
>> This proliferation of terminologies has been one of the drivers to
>> introduce the construct of confidence in the place traditionally
>> by trust and to restrict trust to what is related to the intentions
>> a person. The construct control (expressed directly in those terms,
>> no longer hidden in different flavours of 'two trust;) has also been
>> widely studied.
>> blah, blah....
>> Trust and control both contribute to the confidence (the substitutive
>> approach), but while control is reducible to trust, trust cannot be
>> reduced to control, due to the instrumentalisation of control. "
>> I hope this sheds a bit of light on the fact that these issues have
>> been extensively studied. For those interested in this I recommend
>> the book.
>> Best Regards,
>> - Mark
>> On 3 Mar 2011, at 17:27, Thomas Hardjono wrote:
>>> I would like to suggest that UMA use the narrow term of "trust"
>>> (technical trust) following the one used by the TCG (the people that
>>> made the Trusted Platform Module).
>>> - "Something can be trusted if it behaves in an expected manner
>>> for a
>>> particular purpose".
>>> - It is safe to trust something when:
>>> (it can be unambiguously identified)
>>> & (it operates unhindered)
>>> & ([the user has first hand experience of consistent, good,
>>> behaviour] || [the user trusts someone who vouches for consistent,
>>> good, behaviour]).
>>> Note that there is a distinction between "technical trust" and
>>> WG-UMA mailing list
>>> WG-UMA at kantarainitiative.org
>> WG-UMA mailing list
>> WG-UMA at kantarainitiative.org
More information about the WG-UMA