MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1839542112 · doi:10.3233/fi-2015-1178

Privacy Issues in SOAP Message Exchange Pattern for Social Services

2015· article· en· W1839542112 on OpenAlexaff
Wuhui Chen, Incheon Paik, Patrick C. K. Hung

Bibliographic record

VenueFundamenta Informaticae · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSOAPComputer scienceInternet privacyComputer securityWorld Wide WebBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Web service is defined as an autonomous unit of application logic that provides either some business functionality or information to other applications through an Internet connection. Web services are based on a set of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) standards such as Universal Description, Discovery and Integration (UDDI), Web Services Description Language (WSDL), and Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP). Nowadays Web services are becoming more and more popular for supporting different social applications, thus there are also increasing demands and discussions about Web services privacy protection in information. In general, privacy policies describe an organization's data practices on what information they collect from individuals (e.g., consumers) and what (e.g., purposes) they do with it. To enable privacy protection for Web service consumers across multiple domains and services, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) published a document called “Web Services Architecture (WSA) Requirements” that defines some specific privacy requirements for Web services as a future research topic. This paper presents a mathematical model to construct the privacy policies in SOAP Message Exchange Patterns (MEP) for social services. Further, this paper also presents the privacy policies in security tokens with SOAP messages.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFundamenta InformaticaeSame topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207