Abstract
Digital services have a significant impact on the lives of many people and organisations. Trust influences decisions regarding potential service providers, and continues to do so once a service provider has been selected. There is no globally accepted model to describe trust in the context of digital services, nor to evaluate the trustworthiness of entities. We present a formal framework to partially fill this gap. It is based on four building blocks: a data model, rulebooks, trustworthiness evaluation functions and instance data. An implementation of this framework can be used by a potential trustor to evaluate the trustworthiness of a potential trustee.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The term ‘transparent’ is used as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary figurative meaning, as ‘frank, open, candid, ingenuous’ and ‘Easily seen through, recognized, understood, or detected; manifest, evident, obvious, clear’.
- 3.
One may evaluate the trustworthiness of a credit card provider in a variety of ways, for example that once all other possibilities are exhausted, potential disagreements will be settled before a court of law (an enforcer). Courts of law and all things legal are outside the credit card scheme. Nevertheless I can reason about whether the presence of such an enforcer improves the outcome of evaluation of trustworthiness. Marsh, Sect. 8.5 [13] provides a detailed discussion of the role of an enforcer.
- 4.
Regarding the roles of Accreditation Body and Conformity Assessment Body, the terminology of ISO/IEC 17000:2020 [7] is adhered to.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Developed in a combination of Java and Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations [21] (XSLTs).
- 8.
- 9.
References
Bernabé, J.B., Pérez, G.M., Skarmeta-Gómez, A.F.: Intercloud trust and security decision support system: an ontology-based approach. J. Grid Comput. 13(3), 425–456 (2015)
Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Trust and control: a dialectic link. Appl. Artif. Intell. 14(8), 799–823 (2000)
EU: EU 910/2014 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market, OJ L 257, 28 August 2014, pp. 73–114 (2014)
Gambetta, D.: Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 213–237. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1988)
Gollmann, D.: Why trust is bad for security. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 157(3), 3–9 (2006)
Huang, J., Nicol, D.M.: An anatomy of trust in public key infrastructure. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 13, 238 (2017)
ISO/IEC 17000: Conformity Assessment - Vocabulary and general principles. Technical report, International Organization for Standardization (2020)
Karthik, N., Ananthanarayana, V.S.: An ontology based trust framework for sensor-driven pervasive environment. In: AlDabass, D., Shapiai, M.I., Ibrahim, Z (ed.) AMS 2017, pp. 147–152 (2017)
Karuna, P., Purohit, H., Motti, V.: UTPO: user’s trust profile ontology - modeling trust towards online health information sources. CoRR abs/1901.01276 (2019)
Kravari, K., Bassiliades, N.: ORDAIN: an ontology for trust management in the internet of things. In: Panetto, H., et al. (eds.) OTM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10574, pp. 216–223. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69459-7_15
Sel, M., Üstündağ Soykan, E., Fasllija, E.: Deliverable 2.5 on trust and trust models. https://www.futuretrust.eu/deliverables (2017). Accessed 20 June 2020
Sel, M., Dißauer, G., Zefferer, T.: Deliverable 2.6 evaluation scheme for trustworthy services. https://www.futuretrust.eu/deliverables (2018). Accessed 23 June 2020
Marsh, S.P.: Formalising trust as a computational concept. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stirling (1994). d.Phil. thesis
Musen, M.A.: The Protégé project: a look back and a look forward. AI Matters 1(4), 4–12 (2015)
Oltramari, A., Cho, J.: ComTrustO: composite trust-based ontology framework for information and decision fusion. In: 18th International Conference on Information Fusion, FUSION 2015, Washington, DC, USA, 6–9 July 2015, pp. 542–549 (2015)
Petrovic, G., Fujita, H.: SoNeR: social network ranker. Neurocomputing 202, 104–107 (2016)
Sel, M.: Improving interpretations of trust claims. In: Habib, S.M.M., Vassileva, J., Mauw, S., Mühlhäuser, M. (eds.) IFIPTM 2016. IAICT, vol. 473, pp. 164–173. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41354-9_13
Sullivan, K., Clarke, J., Mulcahy, B.P.: Trust-terms ontology for defining security requirements and metrics. In: 4th European Conference Software Architecture, ECSA 2010, Copenhagen, pp. 175–180. ACM (2010)
W3C: PROV-O: The PROV Ontology W3C Recommendation 30 April 2013. https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ (2013). Accessed 1 Dec 2020
W3C: The Organization Ontology W3C Recommendation 16 January 2014. https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ (2014). Accessed 1 Dec 2020
W3C: XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 3.0 W3C Recommendation 8 June 2017. https://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-30/ (2017). Accessed 9 Dec 2020
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
6 Appendix
6 Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sel, M., Mitchell, C.J. (2021). Automating the Evaluation of Trustworthiness. In: Fischer-Hübner, S., Lambrinoudakis, C., Kotsis, G., Tjoa, A.M., Khalil, I. (eds) Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business. TrustBus 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12927. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86586-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86586-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86585-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86586-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)