Modeling and Representing Trust Relations in Semantic Web-Driven Social Networks
-
Upload
nima-dokoohaki -
Category
Technology
-
view
9.255 -
download
4
description
Transcript of Modeling and Representing Trust Relations in Semantic Web-Driven Social Networks
Modeling and Representing Trust Relations in Semantic Web-Driven Social Networks: An Ontological Analysis
Nima dokoohaki
Royal Institute of Technology,Stockholm, June 2007
Agenda
• Trust in Semantic web• Ontologies• Engineering of trust
ontology– Development– Analysis
• Conclusion• Future work• Questions
Semantic web
• An architectural plan to augment the existing web
• Limitation of current web– Lack of Semantics for software
agents
• How:By Using a set of semantic standards
• Goal: Giving the information on the web more meaning
• Main Reason– More information accessibility
and availability on the web
Adopted from “The Semantic Web: A Guide to the Future of XML, Web Services, and Knowledge Management” – Daconta et al., 2003
StructureStructure XML SchemaXML Schema
Security and IdentitySecurity and Identity
Inference EngineInference Engine
DAML+OIL,OWLDAML+OIL,OWL
RDF/RDF SchemaRDF/RDF Schema
Reasoning and ProofReasoning and Proof
Higher SemanticsHigher Semantics
SemanticsSemantics
TrustTrust
Syntax DataSyntax Data XMLXML
Domain NameSpaceDomain NameSpace
Intelligent Domain Applications and ServicesIntelligent Domain Applications and Services
Importance of trust in semantic web• Semantic web is an
environment with certain features like; – Ubiquitous, – Heterogeneous, – Openness.
• In such an environment, trusting other people and their contributions becomes of great importance.
Trust Definition
Tyron Grandison’s definition:
• Trust is ” the firm belief in the competence of an entity to act dependably, securely, and reliably within a specified context”.
• Distrust is defined as the Lack of Trust.
Trust properties• Trust is described to be: According to
Grandison, and Abdul-Rahman et al.
1. Purpose or context-dependant. For instance, Alice trusts Bob as a doctor, but she might not trust Bob as a car mechanic.
2. Quantitative or qualitative (metric). represents the intensity and level of trust. For instance, Alice might trust Bob as a doctor very much, while she only moderately trusts Martin as a doctor.
3. Transitive, or Non-transitive . when Alice trusts Bob and Bob trusts Anna, Alice will trust Anna.
4. Dynamic. Trust is dynamic and it is permanently changing.
5. Non-monotonic. Further observations may elevate or lower the level of trust invested in another entity.
Trust properties contd.• Two distinctions are made;• Distinction 1:
1. trust in performance: trust in an entity to perform an action,• Alice trusting Bob as a doctor
2. trust in recommendation: trust in an entity to recommend other entities to perform that action.• Alice trusting Bob to recommend a
good doctor
• Distinction 2: Considering existence of recommenders1. trust from direct observation of
the trustee 2. trust derived from the
observations by the recommenders
Social Networks• WBSN, Web-based social
networks• Evolved beyond text messages• Ability to specify and state
reliability, trust and belief• Survey done by Jen Golbeck
done in 2005: “115,000,000 members of the social networks discovered across about 18 networking societies .“– Another big bang is quite close!
• Solution: integration and merging of the data distributed across these networks
Semantic Social Networks • SSN, describes the notion of
integrated and merged social networks. [Stephen Downes, 2004]:– “Network resources are
expressed in XML or RDF, such as descriptions of persons (authors, readers, critics)
– References to those descriptions employed in RDF or XML files describing resources.”
• potential solution for merging and integration of information– The Friend-of-a-Friend (FOAF)
Project [Dumbill, 2002]
Foaf: A framework ,a vocabulary and an ontology• FOAF is “a framework for
representing information about people and their social connections”. Golbeck’s definition
• The FOAF Vocabulary [Brickley, Miller, 2004] contains terms for describing and depicting personal information (such as name, surname and email address), membership in groups and social connections
• FOAF is represented as an ontology, using RDF and OWL
Sample Foaf profile<foaf:Person rdf:ID="me">
<foaf:name>Nima Dokoohaki</foaf:name><foaf:title>Mr</foaf:title><foaf:givenname>Nima</foaf:givenname><foaf:family_name>Dokoohaki</foaf:family_name>
<foaf:depiction rdf:resource="http://nimadokoohaki.googlepages.com/nimatbana.JPG"/><foaf:workplaceHomepage
rdf:resource="http://nimadokoohaki.googlepages.com"/><foaf:schoolHomepage
rdf:resource="http://www.imit.kth.se"/><foaf:knows>
<foaf:Person><foaf:name>Victor Duran Levin</foaf:name></foaf:Person>
</foaf:knows></foaf:Person>
Ontology definition• a structure capturing semantic
knowledge about a certain domain by describing relevant concepts and relations between them
• a graph / network structure consisting from:– A set of concepts (vertices in a
graph);– A set of relationships
connecting concepts (directed edges in a graph);
– A set of instances assigned to a particular concepts
Semantic Web Ontology languages
• RDF: the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and RDF Schema
– is essentially a data modeling language
– RDF is graph-based, but usually serialized as XML.
– it consists of triples: subject, predicate, object.
• DAML+OIL: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Agent Markup Language (DAML) + Ontology Inference Layer (OIL)
– Fairly comparable to OWL • OWL: Web Ontology Language (OWL)
– the most expressive of the ontology languages
– provides mechanisms for creating all the components of an ontology
Ontology construction1. Defining domain and Scope
– Semantic social networks, trust social networks on semantic web
2. Data understanding– Social meta-data; user profiles
and information of people and their social connections
3. Task definition– Describing and representing trust
relationships4. Ontology learning 5. Ontology evaluation6. Refinement with human in
the loop
Main sphere of trust ontology. 3 main Concepts of trust ontology as well as two relationships connecting them together. (visualized using Ontosphere3D plug-in for ProtégéOntosphere3D plug-in for Protégé.)
Relationship concept; two main properties of hasTrustee And hasTruster defined on the range of Foaf-agent and connected to AuxiliaryProperties And MainProperties using two relations of hasAuxiliaryProperties and hasMainProperties
MainProperties concept; having two main data type properties of trust subject (topical trust), and trust value
AuxiliaryProperties concept; having 3 data type properties of DateBegin, DateEnd and ContextType and also hasRecommender which is defined on the range of foaf agent
Modeling trust• We have considered modeling trust • We have described trust in
performance. When we state that “Alice trusts Bob regarding DrivingAlice trusts Bob regarding Driving”.– meaning that, “Alice trusts in
eventuality of performance of Bob to some extent, when the act of driving is performed”.
• Trust Metric: We have used a probabilistic approach to describe trust relationships, so we can say how much someone trusts the other on a range between 0 and 1.
Modeling distrust and feelings• Distrust, is modeled implicitly.
– For instance,” Alice distrusts Bob regarding babysitting to some extent (0.65)”, can be also stated like “Alice trusts Bob regarding babysitting to some (complementary) extent (0.35)”.
• Feelings is modeled to some extent. – Averaging all evaluation values
for a relation, We can derive negative or positive feelings.
• If Alice has low trust values for Bob, then we can state that she has negative feelings for him, or vice versa.
– Limitation: there are many certain properties that should be considered
Presentation of Network using our ontology
<foaf:Person rdf:ID="Alice"/> <foaf:Person rdf:ID="Bob"/> <Relationship rdf:ID="Relationship_Alice_Bob"> <hasTrustee rdf:resource="#Bob"/> <hasTruster rdf:resource="#Alice"/> <hasMainProperties>
<MainProperties rdf:ID="MainProperties_Alice_Bob"><Subject
rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">Driving</Subject><Value rdf:datatype="&xsd;float">0.95</Value>
</MainProperties> </hasMainProperties> <hasAuxiliaryProperties>
<AuxiliaryProperties rdf:ID="AuxiliaryProperties_Alice_Bob"><ContextType rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">
Social Network</ContextType>
</AuxiliaryProperties> </hasAuxiliaryProperties> </Relationship>
BobAlice
Trust / Driving
0.95
Trust networks of small size
ClaraBob
David
Alice
Trust / Cooking
Distrust / Dishwashing
Trust / Driving
Distrust / Teaching
0.76
0.46
0.96
0.80
Increasing the length of the network structure, Network contains 20 nodes and 34 edges)
ClaraBob
David
Alice
Increasing the width of the network structure, (Network contains 28 nodes and 54 edges)
Trust networks of larger size
ClaraBob
David
Alice
GingerEric
Henrik
Frida
Social Network
Business Network
Hybrid Networks - Connected networks of different contexts; a social and a business network. Example Hybrid networks, contain 8 people and 12 relations. 8 links are interconnections (local), and 4 links are acting as glue connecting two networks (foreign). Network contains 48 nodes and 92 edges.
Trust networks of larger size
CB
D
AaB
GE
H
F
OM
P
N
KI
L
J
Meshed networks –Motivated from real-world network formations, complex, combined networks of different sizes and different contexts. Partial or fully connected meshed networks. In sample, A partial meshed network made-up of two connected hybrid networks; This network contains 16 people and 26 relations. (Network contains 98 nodes and 198 edges)
Structural comparison; Small sized networks
GolbeckOurs
Konfidi
Nodes
Edges0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nodes
Edges
Increase in length; Networks of 4 people and 4 relationships.
Increasing is width; Networks of 4 people and 6 relationships.
GolbeckOurs
Konfidi
Nodes
Edges0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nodes
Edges
Structural comparison; large sized networks
Hybrid Network ; Network of 8 people and 12 relationships.
Meshed network; Networks of 16 people and 26 relationships.
GolbeckOurs
Konfidi
Nodes
Edges0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Nodes
Edges
GolbeckNima
Konfidi
Nodes
Edges0
50
100
150
200
250
Nodes
Edges
Discussion on comparisons• In networks of small size, ontology
shows average performance.– As the size of the networks increase,
certain aspect of trust network size increases
• Main reason, the number of elements incorporated within the structure of ontology. – Golbeck’s ontology uses only one main
element, Konfidi uses two main elements, while our ontology uses three main concepts
• Efficiency in design of the ontology– Efficient design has certain aspects that
reduce the size of the networks generated using ontology (Structural Determinism)• Management of over all organization
Discussion on comparisons• Third reason is the
AuxiliaryProperties – incorporating an extensibility
element, incorporates extra edges and especially extra nodes into the network.
• Important: None of the other compared ontologies, have no elements for describing extra properties; – extending Golbeck’s trust
ontology is very hard and needs a thorough change
– Konfidi doesn’t have any elements for describing extra properties.
Conclusion• We analyzed the modeling and
representation of trust within semantic web-driven networking societies. – We used Ontologies as our
modeling tool.• There are certain new features
that our work introduces to trust ontologies in this context; – using our AuxiliaryProperties, we
give relationships more weight and meaning.
– We have introduced the hasRecommender property that can determine the strength of the links on social network
Conclusion
• As a conclusion, ontologies are very promising technologies.
• Utilizing ontologies in modeling and representing trust in semantic web-enabled social networks seems to be a highly efficient methodology and mechanism
• Maybe, “KEY FREE TRUST” KEY FREE TRUST” AT LAST !AT LAST !
Future work• Spotting more research fields
on overlapping areas between Social sciences and Semantic web
• One of the most important future works is spotting further applications for social trust, where trust relationships can be modeled and expressed using ontologies. – Current applications are just limited
to Spam filtering and user rating systems across web sites on internet.