Re: [orms] F2F Day 1 minutes (repost in plain text)

[=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz>]

for some reason, TBird won't render the text attachment in the message view, so 
I'll repost here for my convenience and any one else who has similar problem..

Orms TC - May 1, 2008 - Morning session

Topic Charter Review

Question raised about the sentance in Charter:

"Reputation in this context refers to the opinions about an entity, from others."

The word "opinions" may be too limiting.

Proposed to substitute "statements" for "opinions".

Jeff believes it is premature to commit to a definition of Reputation.

Proposal that we strike the complete sentence.

Bill B proposes we defer discussion of definition but agree during current F2F.

Suggest change to "Reputation in these examples refers..."

Mary: the scope is the key part of the charter, current discussion is of 
introduction.

COntinuing review without any agreed changes.

change:

  Currently, because the majority of existing online reputation based 
mechanisms is developed by private companies and use proprietary schemas for 
representing reputation data, there is no standard way to query, store, 
aggregate, or verify claims between systems.

to:

Currently, because the majority of existing online reputation-based mechanisms 
are developed by private companies and use proprietary schemas for representing 
reputation data, there is no standard way to query, store, aggregate, or verify 
claims between systems.


change:

A good Reputation Management System will separate the reputation of the 
evaluator from the data that is used to evaluate a give entity in the system.

to:

A good Reputation Management System will separate the reputation of the 
evaluator from the data that is used to evaluate a given entity in the system.

Suggestion that the text be changed to suggest the statements are an example.

Hal takes AI to draft text to address concerns expressed.

suggestion:

Change:

The ORMS standards will be independent of the Identity Management System.

To:

The ORMS output will be independent of any one particular Identity Management 
System.

discussion around:

standard definitions of reputation scores

and

it will provide the means for understanding the relevancy of a score within a 
given transaction.

and

XML Schema for Reputation Score

-much discusion about intent-proposal


means to convey reputation scores and their definitions

agreed to recess for lunch and draft one or more proposal


Orms TC - May 1, 2008 - afternoon of May 1, 2008
1. discussion of �score� scope:
a. value vs score � can we write charter description to reduce ambiguity of 
what is meant by score?
b. Would moving beyond �scope� context create too large a charter shift? - perhaps
c. This is clarification question � not a charter scope change
d. Perhaps add a footnote to define �scores� as
i. a contextual [set] of values denoting a reputation of an entity for a 
specific transaction or use.
e. Tony � let us walk thru use cases to determine if there is �no scoring� use 
cases
f. Tony � proposal to close discussion on defining �score� and defer more 
discussion to amend charter or not once we have established some more 
background on the subject
g. Drummond � let�s keep going
h. Bill Barnhill � let�s keep going
i. consensus � move on
2. discussion of aggregation issue dealing with equivalence mapping for vocabs 
� we can wait for a proposal later as the issue may arise
3. change 2. of Scope of the Work to best �practices� (plural)
4. proposal to strike the word �ratings� and to keep just �scores� in 3. Out of 
Scope second para
5. comment � publishing of security analysis is too late � way after other 
deliverables
a. recommend publish security guidelines at the same time - - March 2009 timeframe
b. perhaps publish security guidelines as part of the same documents as the 
protocols
c. there is consensus to publish at the same time
6. discussion on timeframes for each deliverable
a. proposal to align security guidelines with protocols accepted � consensus
b. consensus to move all deliverables out two months from currently stated
7. change RF on limited terms to capital �L� for �limited� of Section e
8. change sentence of f. �anticipated audience or users of the work� to be 
proposed by Drummond � to be provided to Chris Daly
9. review of charter completed

Action items
1. two proposed changes coming from Hal
a. Introduction section 1b � in statement of purpose
b. Adding a new para for �following text�� in section 1b in �statement of purposed�
2. in scope section, some proposal is expected in c. The �scope of the work of 
this TC� to be provided by Bill Barnhill
3. Drummond�s proposal is:  The output of this work will have benefits for the 
use of the Internet as a medium for commerce and social internetworking. The 
work will have a direct impact of the users of identity management systems, 
blogs, forums, and other open online communities. It will also facilitate trust 
establishment in peer to peer and social networks.

Phone check:  Jeff, Mike, Paul, Dee, Corey are on phone

Order of business
1. motion to accept first 2 changes passed (Hal�s proposed changes)
2. moving on � back to agenda
3. Discussion now on:
a. Working definitions of reputation
i. Daniela BW presenting a definition, concept / reference model
1. discussion around this model � a lot of questions around difference between 
�context� and �defining space�
2. Daniela to put the model in a document to be shared with the team
3. concept of portable reputations presented by Daniela
4. other work being done by IBM discussed by Daniela
5. OpenID identity use case presented by Nat
6. closed spaces versus open spaces vs cross-over (portable) reputations discussed
7. other examples of reputation systems cited � Trustsystems, Jikes, blogs, etc
ii. Action item � we need better definitions and thoughts regarding terms 
�context� and �defining space�
iii. Action item � need a template for describing use cases � think of a 
reference model mapped to a use case
4. change to discussion to logistics for future sessions
a. quick around the room intros
b. timeframe for calls  10am or 5pm EDT?
i. Consensus for weekly calls beginning next Wed for calls starting at 5pm for 
60 minutes
ii. Invite will be on TC web page for calls with bridge numbers
iii. Hal will find the call-in number; Tony will post it to the TC calendar
c. Hal volunteers for the membership;
i. No objections to Hal noted
d. Bill Barnhill volunteers for the wik/public webpage
i. No objections to Bill noted
e. We will choose a minutes person each call
i. Minutes should show up in day or two on the site.  Minutes are draft until 
accepted/approved at the next meeting.  Minutes should follow agenda.
f. Volunteers for editorial team of the documents:
i. Most indicated willingness when time comes � Drummond, Hal, Tony indicated 
not having bandwidth to act as editorial members
ii. Hal expressed possibility that F2Fs will be needed � there are some 
restrictions indicated by the group
iii. Reasonable advance notice is 2 months for a F2F � host TBD
g. Deferred assignment of subcommittees
h. Procedure for starting a vote � can email or web-based procedures be used?
i. Hal reviewed OASIS rules -
ii. From Section 2.13 of Oasis TC process:  motion to adopt a standing rule to 
use email list to start an electronic ballot
iii. Motion passed � no objections
i. Hal reviewed TC membership rules:  once you attend 2 consecutive announced 
meetings, you are a voting member; once you miss 2 consecutive announced 
meetings, you are a non-voting member.  There are exceptions to handle 
vacations and leave of absence.  Secretary/Chairs needs to be notified 7 days 
in advance.
j. Nat proposed two documents as input for consideration to TC � Nat will 
supply links to the ORMS list
k. Tomorrow
i. Discuss charter issues with proposals from Drummond and Bill
ii. Continue use case review
iii. Review Nat�s input documents
iv. Discuss taxonomy
v. Minute taker is Bill Barnhill for tomorrow
vi. Need someone to volunteer to maintain issues list and tracker

---
end