Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03.txt

Hi, folks, before mentioning the RATER, RATED and RATING, let’s look back:
what should the judge do towards the suspect in court. Usually, the judge
should sentence the suspect to be either guilty or innocent; no judge will
sentence a suspect to be 50% guilty (or innocent)! To some extent, the role
of RATER, RATED and RATING is similar to that of the judge, suspect and
verdict, respectively. In my opinion, the RATER should have a clear
position towards the RATED; so the RATING should be either 0 or 1, no
other floating-point
number between 0 and 1.

2012/7/19 Steve Allam <steve.allam@trustsphere.com>

>  Hi,
>
> Maybe also worth pointing out that the reputation application that is
> being used (ficticious in this case) would have its own description of how
> it used the rating item, and how the number should be interpreted - in a
> similar way to many anti-spam systems that provide a score, they normally
> provide information on what different levels of that score mean and how you
> might use them - as the user, you can then do whatever you like, but the
> recommendations are provided.
>
> As a further example, in our reputation application, the RATING item in
> the repute response will be either 0 or 1, never anything inbetween, as we
> are simply returning a true or false - our documentation will detail how
> you may wish to use the 0 or 1 as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> On 18/07/2012 18:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:29 AM, 邓光青 <dgq2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>   Consider this case:
>>
>> Content-type: application/reputon+json
>>
>> {
>>
>> "reputon":
>>
>> {
>>
>> "rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com",
>>
>> "rater-authenticity": 1.0,
>>
>> "assertion": "IS-GOOD",
>>
>> "rated": "Alex Rodriguez",
>>
>> "rating": 0.5,
>>
>> "sample-size": 50000
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>> …indicates that we are absolutely *sure* (1.0) that the entity "
>> RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated 50000 data points (perhaps from
>> everyone in Yankee Stadium) and concluded that Alex Rodriguez may be *good*
>> or be *bad* (0.5) at something. Besides, if "rater-authenticity" equals 0.5
>> but "rating" equals 1.0, it is also very hard to understand.
>>
>
>
> I interpret that reply to mean, literally: RatingsRUs.example.comcollected 50,000 data points about Alex Rodriguez.  It is 100% certain that
> "Alex Rodriguez" refers to a real thing.  The data collected indicates that
> the claim "Alex Rodriguez is good" is 50% true.
>
> As a person reading this, I take that to mean he's not good but also not
> bad at whatever the application space covers, or that it's 50% likely that
> he's good.
>
> -MSK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing listdomainrep@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>
>

-- 
Guangqing Deng