RE: [orms] Charter proposal

[<Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com>]

Hi Chris,

 

The orginal contention since the F2F meeting was the word "score".   I propose that we stick with the proposal Jeff and I made to use the word "value" instead of "score".

 

BR-

Dorothy

 

---

From: ext Chris Daly [mailto:rcdaly@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:52 AM
To: orms@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Anthony Nadalin
Subject: [orms] Charter proposal

I propose the following for the charter starting with this substitution on line 55 and continuing to the end of the paragraph :  The trust model of a reputation system represents the core component of the system. It defines assumptions, properties, and constraints of a trust establishment between the "trusted party" and the "trusting party" where the trusting party relies on one or more reputation scores to make a trust decision.   A reputation score(s) cannot be applicable in all trust establishment contexts. As such, there is a need for a Reputation Management Framework that enables users to orient reputation scores to a particular trust establishment context and as input for calculating aggregated reputation scores where different reputation systems are used to feed into a aggregated reputation system for a particular trust decision context.

rationale:  I think we as a standards organization need to influence the standardization of output of proprietary reputation systems - not necessarily the proprietary methods and formats used to collect and input the raw reputation data into their proprietary systems.  As such, we need to focus on the scores and through this focus, provide a common format by which scores can be used as input and combined by reputation aggregators.  

Regards,
Chris Daly
Technical Competency Lead for Security - IBM Software Group
tel:  301-240-2610 t/l 372
fax:  301-240-3350 t/l 372
cell: 301-524-6691
Gaithersburg, MD