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

[Steve Allam <[e-mail]>]

It depends.

If my assertion is "does this sender ALWAYS send good messages", the
rating would be 1 or 0
If my assertion is "what percentage of mail is good from this sender",
the rating will be somewhere between 0 and 1

Hence, the rating can be whatever the application author wants it to be,
repute just provides the framework.

Steve


On 19/07/2012 16:43, 邓光青 wrote:
>
> 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
> RATERshould 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 <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>     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 <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         Consider this case:
>>
>>         Content-type: application/reputon+json
>>
>>         {
>>
>>         "reputon":
>>
>>         {
>>
>>         "rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com
>>         <http://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
>>         <http://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.com
>>     <http://RatingsRUs.example.com> collected 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 list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     domainrep mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Guangqing Deng
>