--On 28 January 2011 12:13:53 -0500 Chris Lewis <clewis(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 1/27/2011 5:07 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
But let's not forget that defining "reputation" means two things. First,
the word "reputation" has a fairly tightly constrained meaning in the
English language. Those who argue that reputation can mean anything
probably aren't thinking of a new candidate entry for the Oxford English
Dictionary.
No, the existing dictionary definition may be "constrained" in one sense,
but not necessarily constrained well enough for communication via a
computer protocol. Computers don't find human language easy after all.
True, but that's not the point. What matters is how one aqcuires
reputation. That is, the listing policy for the reputation service. That's
what needs to be communicated when someone is considering whether to
subscribe to a reputation service. Computer communication isn't relevant
here.
Some write as if it can be adequately be represented as a single "good",
"bad" or "neutral" indicator, or some scale between the three.
That depends on what you mean by adequate. And that depends on what you're
doing with the listing. If you're using it in -say- spamassassin, then you
want to apply a score. A trinary result may be helpful, and the consumer of
the service will weight that score accordingly. More useful would be -say-
a positive or negative score out of 10 or 100 (more granualarity probably
would not be meaningful). Again, the consumer would want to weight that
score according to their judgement of the reliablity of the provider.
<snip>
We all know what a bad reputation *is*,
Kinda like porn, "we know it when we see it"? ;-)
Seriously, but do we?
Yes, but different people, as you say, will differ as to whether it's
deserved.
Entity A and entity B may both have validly "bad"
reputations, but for entirely different reasons, even within the same
reputation service, in such a way that they need to be interpreted
differently. A reputation service needs to be able to impart at least
some notion of context/reason so that a receiver can make an intelligent
choice to respect/disregard/amplify/deprecate or whatever.
I don't think a simple yes/no/dunno or even a scale is adequate.
Spamhaus Zen, for example, is multi-dimensional. Even its grossly
simplistic expressive power is greater than I see the road we're treading
here.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg