- From: Ronald E. Daniel <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 13:20:27 -0600
- To: bede@scotty.mitre.org, www-talk@www10.w3.org
- Cc: immedia@netwest.com, nazgul@utopia.com, peterd@bunyip.com, marc@matahari.ckm.ucsf.edu, michael@junction.net, rating@junction.net, uri@bunyip.com
On Jun 26, 8:05pm, bede@scotty.mitre.org wrote: > Subject: RE: Intelligent Rating Systems > Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:01:13 -0700 (PDT) > From: Michael Dillon <michael@junction.net> > > This is precisely why I am proposing that ratings be served up by a third > party, i.e. not the WWW author nor the WWW server operator. Any third > party who wishes can set up a ratings server and serve up ratings. In > > I might be reading it all wrong, but this looks like a scheme which > would entail an awful lot of overhead. Are you suggesting a scheme > where a client would be required to do two retrievals for every > document or object retrieved (one to an independent rating server and > a second one for the document)? This also suggests that, as is the > case with commerce protocols like iKP and its ilk, we'd need a new and > distinct "content-rating" protocol. If URCs are used for this, there are two accesses - the first to the rating server to get rating and location info, the second to get the resource if the rating checks out. Since we are trying to get a level of indirection into the Web so that resources can easily migrate and replicate, doing the rating imposes no extra round-trips. Also, no particular rating-specific protocol is needed, the draft URC spec uses HTTP. There may need to be particular Internet Media Types so that particular rating syntaxes can be easily parsed, but that is between the ratings server and its clients. -- Ron Daniel Jr. email: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov Advanced Computing Lab voice: (505) 665-0597 MS B-287 TA-3 Bldg. 2011 fax: (505) 665-4939 Los Alamos National Lab http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel/ Los Alamos, NM, 87545 tautology: "Conformity is very popular"
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 1995 15:21:32 UTC