Seminar: Trends in Enterprise Interoperability - Trust Management for Networked : Schedule and tasks

 

Pre-task to be completed before Tue 9.9.2014

  • Read the following article: Sini Ruohomaa, Lea Kutvonen, Trust management survey. Proceedings on Trust Management, Springer 2005, pp.  77-92.
  • Briefly respond to the following questions (and bring your answers into class on 9.9., on paper, printed in large font, short statements suitable for pasting on the walls)
    • Definition of trust or trust decision?
    • Differentiation between terms trust, reputation, and recommendation system?
    •  

Session I on Tue 9.9. 2014

  • Learning to know a bit each other
  • Introduction to the trust management topic and discussing the pre-task outcomes and extending from it
  • Getting organised on the seminar working ways: requirements on presentations, papers, schedule, writing and presenting styles, potential topics,  ...
    • topic to be agreed in personal meeting resulting into a "workplan"or "abstract"
      • working method is intended to be self-directed in the sence that your own interest have an effect on the storyline and selection of articles
      • you are expected to give intermediate progress reports and develop the topic in collaboration with the advisor
      • Grading is strongly related to the higher level of discussion in Blooms taxonomy (see the slides), which requires a level of independence in the selection of materials but assistance is available in order to make the reading around and search process quicker by adding suggested readings after having seen the initial direction you take.
    • the abstract needs to include the self-designed title, definition of the trust concept in use and the relationship of the research question to this trust concept, overall storyline intentions 
    • 45 min presentation
    • 12 pages paper, 1 column style, layed out like MSc thesis
    • everyone takes equally part in all post-presentation discussion (part of grading)
    • after presentation, anonymous or signed feedback pages to be written and given directly to the presenter
      • what was successful in the paper? in the presentation?
      • what and how could be improved?
      • what kind of general (positive) message was carried over by the paper as a whole (writing style, including depth of analysis, clarity of the scope, addressing of the research methodologies in projects reported, and understandability of the language and figures)? by the presentation? (understandability of the spoken language, structure of the presentation, visibility and understandability of the slides, confidence)
  • link to seminar materials directory

Setting-up topics meetings

Session II 16.9.2014

  • Week starting on 15.9
    • the rest of the topics fixed, personal meetings round completed
    • see working method above, in Session I and II texts

Abstracts deadline

  • Week starting on 22.9 abstracts sent in by email; feedback during the same week; no group meeting
  • see working method above, in Session I and II texts
  • no meeting on Tue 23.9 due to overlapping unit meeting for staff and students

Independent working time

  • Tue 30.9 no meeting with group, available for advise and discussion in D221
  • Tue 7.10no meeting with group, available for advise and discussion in D221
  • on both days the normal classroom C220 is available for peer collaboration for those who wish to proceed in that manner
  •  

​Papers completed, peer review

  • 14.10 no meeting, papers go through peer review: dl 13.10, self-organised distribution to peer reviewers, exchange of comments
    • when all topics have been agreed on, a split into 2-3 peer review groups will be published right here
    • in the beginning of the week, send your paper to the peer group + advisor
    • as responses to the paper, send your review comments to author + advisor only
    • your advisor will give you comments and requirements as well
    • when reviewing the papers, consider the following
      • clarity of the research question stated and the suitablity of the text structure for outlining the solutions presented
      • appropriateness and sufficiency of analytical, synthetising, evaluating material, including discussion of the original research work research method usage  (Bloom taxonomy in-depth elements)
      • clarity and technical correctness of presentation

 

  • Peer review groups and seminar work rough topics 
  • Group "trust on information":
    • Klaus Zaerens: Trust Based Situation Awareness in High Security Cloud Environment
    • ​Dawit Asena: TRAVOS system - trust based reputation when informaiton sources are inaccurate
    • Heikki Havukainen: Sultan trust management tool
  • Group "trust management systems"
    • Liisa Lado-Villar: Trusting private information to others
    • Anne Hankosalo: trust management systems approach to authorization and access control in presense of delegation (attorney)
    • ​Anusuya Bashyam: ​Comparison of TrustCom and ECOLEAD (or Pilarcos) trust management systems
  • Google drive drop area for sharing papers and comments within the group
    • ​link provided by email on 13.10 around 4 pm. ​
    • In the directory, there are three areas: i) manuscripts ii) reviews and iii) final papers.
    • In the manuscripts and final paper areas, name your manuscript and final paper with your last name and an abbreviation of your specific theme. Share pdf files!
    • In the reviews area, name your feedback with receiving author name + your name. Supervisor comments (that comment also the review statements) are emailed to the address you used at the seminar registration. Use pdf or text fomats.

​​Final papers 

  • After review comments have been received, you have at least a week to improve your paper. The final paper is sent by email to the whole group + advisor a week before the presentation, so everyone is able to read it before the presentation.
  • In some cases the paper is agreed to get another fixing round after the presentation. In that case you have two weeks to resubmit the paper.
  • Use the same google drive domain as explained above for peer reviews.

Presentations - initial draft - with this draft, final papers due Tue 28.10.

  • 4.11 Zaerens
  • 11.11 Heikki Havukainen
  • 18.11 Anne Hankosalo
  • 25.11 Dawit Asena
  • 2.12 Liisa Lado-Villar
  • 9.12 Anusuya Bashyam (presentation cancelled)

 

 

For topic selection

 

Other suggested approaches

Each of you read the same article to start with and picked up very different aspects of trust and trust management as the key features. Interesting - and extremely relevant for the present times of trust management research and development trends. We will continue this discussion, and enhance it by picking background papers reflecting these different interpretations. Above you see some already spoken for approaches (background articles agreed on personally), and below you can find some additional approaches that match the definitions or guiding principles you took up in the initial discussion on the first session.

  • Trust decisions based on objecive weighting of risks and benefits (one of these as starting point at a time, they each take a different path)
    • Wilson, Michael, et al. "The TrustCoM approach to enforcing agreements between interoperating enterprises." Enterprise Interoperability. Springer London, 2007. 365-375.
    •  Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J. and Lacy, J., Decentralized trust management. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, California, May 1996, IEEE, pages 164–173, URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/3742/10940/00502679.pdf.
    • Staab, E. and Engel, T. (2009). "Tuning Evidence-Based Trust Models". 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Information Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT'09), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 92-99, IEEE. pp. 92–99.  ISBN 978-1-4244-5334-4.
  • Attack types
  • Trust decisions as externally conducted services
  • Agreement technologies utilising trust concepts
  • Reaching trust relationship as a result of negotiations
    • eg. Winsborough, William H., Kent E. Seamons, and Vicki E. Jones. "Automated trust negotiation." DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, 2000. DISCEX'00. Proceedings. Vol. 1. IEEE, 2000.
  • Reputation-based trust
  • Contracts and reputation-based trust architecture
    • Wilson, Michael, et al. "The TrustCoM approach to enforcing agreements between interoperating enterprises." Enterprise Interoperability. Springer London, 2007. 365-375.
  • ​Usage schenarios for trust management systems and testing them (multiple topic areas)

 

Some surveys (and common readings)

  • McKnight D.H., Chervany N.L. (2002). Conceptualizing Trust: A Typology and E-Commerce Customer Relationships Model. In: Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  •  Mui L., Halberstadt A, Mohtashemi M. (2002). Notions of Reputation in Multi-Agent Systems: a Review. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-02), Bologna, Italy, pp. 280-287.
  • Isaac Pinyol · Jordi Sabater-Mir, Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review. Artif Intell Rev (2013) 40:1–25
    DOI 10.1007/s10462-011-9277-z.
  • J Sabater, C Sierra Review on computational trust and reputation models Artificial Intelligence Review 24 (1), 33-60
  • Grandison, Tyrone, and Morris Sloman. "A survey of trust in internet applications." Communications Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE 3.4 (2000): 2-16.
  • Cho, Jin-Hee, Ananthram Swami, and Ray Chen. "A survey on trust management for mobile ad hoc networks." Communications Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE 13.4 (2011): 562-583.

 

 

Tulostettava sivuTulostettava sivu