Subject: [domainrep] On the sample-size field

From: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:39:57 +0100

Hi,

Along some internal discussions about the applicability of reputons in additional use cases some people have pointed the fact that making a MUST the usage of a sample-size field can cause problems in certain application scenarios, where such size may be irrelevant, not strictly defined, or even arguable. Think of reputons for financial transactions (e-commerce or on-line auction sites) or the output of reputation aggregators based on sources that are weighted.

If I remember well, this was mentioned at the Taipei meeting, but no action was agreed. My proposal would be to move this MUST from the model definition to the particular vocabulary definitions where they are a requirement.

Be goode,

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D

e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel:      +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
-----------------------------------------

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx