OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tc-announce message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Proposed Charter for OASIS ORMS TC

To OASIS Members:

  A draft TC charter has been submitted to establish the Open Reputation Management 
Systems (ORMS) Technical Committee. In accordance with the OASIS TC Process Policy 
section 2.2: 
(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#2.2) the proposed charter is 
hereby submitted for comment. The comment period shall remain open until 11:45pm ET 
on 22 February 2008. 

  OASIS maintains a mailing list for the purpose of submitting comments on proposed 
charters. Any OASIS member may post to this list by sending email to:
mailto:oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org. All messages will be publicly 
archived at: 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-charter-discuss/. Members who wish to 
receive emails must join the group by selecting "join group" on the group home page:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oasis-charter-discuss/. Employees of 
organizational members do not require primary representative approval to subscribe 
to the oasis-charter-discuss e-mail.

  A telephone conference will be held among the Convener, the OASIS TC Administrator, 
and those proposers who wish to attend within four days of the close of the comment 
period. The announcement and call-in information will be noted on the OASIS Charter 
Discuss Group Calendar.

  We encourage member comment and ask that you note the name of the proposed TC 
(ORMS) in the subject line of your email message. 


Mary P McRae
Manager of TC Administration, OASIS
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org  
web: www.oasis-open.org
phone: 603.232.9090


OASIS Open Reputation Management Systems (ORMS) Technical Committee

1) The Charter of the TC, which includes only the following items: 
(1)(a) The name of the TC
      OASIS Open Reputation Management Systems (ORMS) Technical Committee

 (1)(b) A statement of purpose, including a definition of the problem to be solved. 
The increasing reliance on the Internet as a medium for social interaction and online
collaboration, and the emergence of converged networks with ubiquitous services that span
different wire-line, wireless, mobile networks, devices, and users are placing new emphasis for
developing reputation mechanisms for electronics based communities.

The use of reputation systems has been proposed for various applications such as:
* Validating the trustworthiness of sellers and buyers in online auctions (which sites like eBay
have proved can have large influence on sellers)
* Detecting free riders in peer to peer networks 
* Ensuring the authenticity of signature keys in a web of trust.
* Smarter searching of web sites, blogs, events, products, companies and other individuals.

Reputation in this context refers to the opinions about an entity, from others. 
Reputation is one of the factors upon which trust can be based through the use of 
verifiable claims. Reputation changes with time and is used within a context. 
Trust and reputation are related to a context.   For example, my trust in Sam as a 
doctor can be different from my trust in Sam as my financial advisor.

There are various methods for generating user's reputation data or trustworthiness. 
Some methods are based on user's feedback through appropriate feedback channels, 
such as in eBay. Other methods include having viewers participate in the 
reputation-building process through the user's profile at specific sites and 
communities. Each method has its limitations in terms of its susceptibility to bad 
actors, manipulation of data for specific purposes, and spammers.

Current thrusts with user-centric Identity solutions place immediate and urgent 
importance for the development of online reputation management systems that could be 
used for enabling trust and collaboration in a distributed manner while preserving the 
privacy of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). 

Reputation models are built using diverse mechanisms to meet specific needs - such as 
the feedback system of eBay. In general reputations systems collect, distribute, 
and may aggregate feedback about a principal's past behavior. The availability of online 
reputation feedback systems and the use of data extraction mechanisms will eventually lead 
to the wide availability of reputation information about users (human, devices etc.) on 
the Internet. As such, there is a need to have users control how, when and by whom their 
reputation data is accessed. At the least, there is a need for users to be aware and 
in control of privacy related components of their reputation data. These issues are 
also related to how global reputation is computed based on observed user's interactions.

Reputation based techniques can be used as the basis for building trust and enhancing 
cooperation in peer-to-peer networks, either in a centralized manner or through the use 
of aggregators and brokers. 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. There is no standard way for users to participate or 
determine the reputation of the reputation data providers. Additionally, there is no 
standard communication protocol for exchanging reputation data. 

Evaluating large sets of different and possibly contradictory opinions is a 
non-trivial process. The trust model of a reputation system represents the core 
component of the system. It defines all assumptions on the properties of trust and 
describes how to calculate reputation scores (trust values). A trust value cannot be 
applicable in all contexts. As such, there is a need for a Reputation Management 
Framework that enables users to acquire raw reputation data and calculate their own 
reputation scores, either using their personal experience or with the help of data aggregators.

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. The same concept 
should apply to all entities in the eco-system. In this fashion, aggregators will have a 
reputation that can be used to score how well they do in gathering good data, and feedback 
providers will have their own reputation that could be used as a means to purge or clean 
feedback that they provide on other entities. Such systems will be less susceptible to 
data manipulation and have the ability to provide constructive reputation or trustworthiness 

In order to build an internet-scale trust-infrastructure, reputation data needs to be 
readily available for use and sharing in many contexts. Additionally, there is a 
need to ensure that users have a say in who owns their data, how it is protected 
and what mechanisms are available to manage it.  Many OASIS and other open standards 
can play an important role in ensuring that reputation data stays open.   The ORMS 
standards will be independent of the Identity Management System.

(1)(c) The scope of the work of the TC.

The purpose of this TC is to develop an Open Reputation Management System (ORMS) 
that provides the ability to use common data formats for representing reputation data, 
and standard definitions of reputation scores. The system will not define algorithms for 
computing the scores. However, it will provide the means for understanding the relevancy 
of a score within a given transaction. The TC's output will enable the deployment of a 
distributed reputation systems that can be either centralized or decentralized with the 
ability for aggregators and intermediaries to be part of the business model.
Scope of the work

1. Analysis, Use Cases and Requirement Gathering 

a. Use cases to gather requirements that ORMS will need to meet and understand the 
   business and social impact of such a system including security, privacy, threats 
   and risks requirements will also be developed. Explore the use of reputation mechanisms 
   in novel settings.

b. Document that analyzes performance of existing reputation mechanisms with
   respect to the requirements developed in the previous steps and identify 
   current gaps.

2. Develop Framework for Open Reputation Data

a. Development a framework for reputation data gathering including:

   * Development of common data models for expressing reputation data 
   * XML Schema for representing ORMS data
   * XML Schema for Reputation Score
   * Development of standard way of exchanging reputation claims among systems.
   * Development of means of aggregating reputation data including delegation of 
     claims generations and assertions.
   * Development of query/response communication protocols for exchanging 
     reputation data in a trusted and secure fashion. This step may develop a 
     new protocol, or extend current ones such as SAML, OpenID etc.

3. Security, threats and Risk analysis

   * Perform Security Risk analysis and profiles for best practice.

4. Out of Scope 

Algorithms that can be used for generating a reputation score are out of scope of 
this work. The work will define a standard way to infer what a given score will mean 
but will not specify how to compute that value.

The work does not exclude methods for asserting equivalence or relationships between 
scoring systems. A possible output of the TC work might include methods to facilitate the 
calculation of comparisons between score ratings, or operations that take multiple scores 
as inputs.

(1)(d) A list of deliverables, with projected completion dates.

   1. Use Cases document; July 2008
   2. Requirements document; September 2008
   3. Framework for reputation data gathering; January 2009
   4. XML Schema for representing ORMS data; March 2009
   5. XML Schema for Reputation Score; March 2009
   6. Assertions/claims (tokens) profiles; March 2009
   7. Protocol(s) for exchanging of reputation data and assertion tokens; September 2009
   8. Security, threats and Risk analysis; January 2010

(1)(e) Specification of the IPR Mode under which the TC will operate.
       The TC shall operate under: RF on limited Terms 

(1)(f) The anticipated audience or users of the work.

The output of this work will have direct benefits for the use of the internet as a 
medium for conducting social internetworking. The work will have direct impact of the 
users of the Identity Management, blogs, OpenID communities and trust establishment in 
peer to peer and social networks.

(1)(g) The language in which the TC shall conduct business.

    This TC will use English as the language for conducting its operations.

(2) Non-normative information regarding the startup of the TC: 

(2)(a) Identification of similar or applicable work that is being done in 
       other OASIS TCs or by other organizations, why there is a need for another 
       effort in this area and how this proposed TC will be different, and what level of 
       liaison will be pursued with these other organizations.

The ORMS TC will be developing new work items that are currently not covered by any 
other OASIS TC. However, the TC will be using the output of other OASIS TC such as XDS, XRI, 
DSS, WS*, SAML and WS-Security.

The TC co-chairs will coordinate closely with the above TC in order to inform 
them about the progress of the ORMS work and also in order to count on their 
expertise in the development of ORMS work.

Currently, there is no other work in any other SDO that overlap with the work of this TC.

(2)(b) The date, time, and location of the first meeting, whether it will 
be held in person or by phone, and who will sponsor this first meeting. The first 
meeting of a TC shall occur no less than 30 days after the announcement of its 
formation in the case of a telephone or other electronic meeting, and no less 
than 45 days after the announcement of its formation in the case of a face-to-face 

The First meeting of this TC will take place on May 1 and May 2, 2008 to coincide with the 
OASIS Symposium at: Santa Clara Marriott, 2700 Mission College Boulevard, 
Santa Clara CA 95054.

 (2)(c) The projected on-going meeting schedule for the year following the formation 
        of the TC, or until the projected date of the final deliverable, whichever comes 
        first, and who will be expected to sponsor these meetings.

The TC will conduct its business via weekly teleconference call. The time of 
the call will be determined during the first meeting of the TC. The TC will conduct F2F 
meeting on as needed bases. Teleconference facilities and F2F meetings will be 
sponsored by the TC participants.

(2)(d) The names, electronic mail addresses, and membership affiliations of at least 
       Minimum Membership who support this proposal and are committed to the Charter 
       and projected meeting schedule.

Tony Rutkowski, VeriSign, trutkowski@verisign.com
Tony Nadalin, IBM, drsecure@us.ibm.com
Drummond Reed, Cordance, drummond.reed@cordance.net
Nat Sakimura, NRI, n-sakimura@nri.co.jp
Tatsuki Sakushima, NRI, tatsuki@nri.com
Masaki Nishitani, NRI, m-nishitani@nri.co.jp
Madhukar, GOOGLE, madhukar@google.com
Travis Phipps, Vidoop, travis.phipps@vidoop.com
Phill Windley, BYU, phil@windley.org
Daniel Lulich, Iovation, daniel.lulich@iovation.com
Chris Hagenbuch, Safespace, chris.hagenbuch@safetspace.com
Paul Trevithick, Parity, Paul@parityinc.net
Terrell Russel, terrell@terrellrussell.com
Arshad Noor, StrongAuth, arshad.noor@strongauth.com
Bill Barnhill, Booz Allen, barnhill_william@bah.com

(2)(e) The name of the Convener who must be an Eligible Person.

Abbie Barbir of Nortel will be the TC Convener.

(2)(f) The name of the Member Section with which the TC intends to affiliate with

        The TC intends to affiliate with the IDTrust Member Section.

(2)(g) Optionally, a list of contributions of existing technical work that the 
       proposers anticipate will be made to this TC.
           [1] OpenID Reputation Service Extension (Proposal), by Nat Sakimura, 
               Nomura Research Institute
           [2] Trusted Data Exchange Overview, by Nat Sakimura and
               Masaki Nishitani, Nomura Research Institute
           * wiki version of the two documents can be found at

(2)(h) Optionally, a draft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document regarding the 
       planned scope of the TC, for posting on the TC's website.

(2)(i) Optionally, a proposed working title and acronym for the specification(s) to be 
       developed by the TC. 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]