RE: [orms] Reputation Model + Comments

["Giles Hogben" <Giles.Hogben@enisa.europa.eu>]

Hi Drummond, I can certainly do an email before next call. I probably won't be able to make the call next week though. I'll know nearer the time. If not i'll come the week after... 

--- original message ---
From: "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>
Subject: RE: [orms] Reputation Model + Comments
Date: 18th June 2008
Time: 11:05:41 pm

Giles, thanks very much for posting this. I agree with Jeff that is has a
great deal of merit - and so far is also one of the most readable and
relevant documents to the work of the TC.

 

I also agree with Jeff that discussing the differences between your model
and that of Pinyol2007Ontology [1] would be very useful to the TC,
particularly in our terminology and model development stage.

 

Perhaps you could lead us through such a discussion on the next call? Or
even start with an email that contrasts/compares the two models from your
POV?

 

Best,

 

=Drummond

 

[1] http://www.iiia.csic.es/~jsabater/Publications/2007-TrustWS.pdf

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Giles Hogben [mailto:Giles.Hogben@enisa.europa.eu] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:35 AM
To: orms@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [orms] Reputation Model + Comments

 

OK - I'm now posting this as a member of the group

Hi All,
I've just joined this group with Observer status since I don't have a lot of
time to work on it. I work for the European Network and Information Security
Agency (ENISA) and have some experience in =
reputation systems esp security and privacy issues (a report I co-edited =
is one of your refs). I wanted to contribute a couple of things.

1. A while back I sketched (see attachment) - a language which fits a lot of
your use-cases - it's quite skeletal but I think it has some useful ideas.
Don't be put off by the vote terminology - it's about reputation, not
e-voting. This was just a personal project and not part of any larger
initiative.
2. I saw some of the discussions and I wanted to say I think it's very
important that any protocol is symettric - in the sense that you can a.
nest/recurse reputation as much as you want and b.check reputation =
reciprocally.
3. Reputation is fundamentally about agreggated beliefs on an assertion.
There should therefore be work on integrating with SAML.

Any thoughts on the attached welcome. I'd be happy to join a call and take
people through it some time (but not in the next couple of weeks probably as
I'm very busy),

Regards,

Giles Hogben
(See attached file: reputation2.pdf)