# Re: Intelligent Rating Systems

Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
Mon, 26 Jun 95 23:59:14 CDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Fisher Mark: "Re: date in URN"
- Previous message: bede@scotty.mitre.org: "RE: Intelligent Rating Systems"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Grous: "Intelligent Rating Systems"
- Next in thread: R. Martin Roscheisen: "Re: Intelligent Rating Systems"
- Reply: R. Martin Roscheisen: "Re: Intelligent Rating Systems"

    Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 23:59:14 CDT

    From: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)

    Message-Id: <9506270459.AA16138@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>

    To: bede@scotty.mitre.org, rmr@cs.stanford.edu

    Subject: Re: Intelligent Rating Systems

From: "R. Martin Roscheisen" <rmr@cs.stanford.edu>

Yes, two separate retrievals, and not only two, but one (for the
document retrieval) plus n other requests to n meta information
servers which serve m rating topics (m>=n).

Martin argues as I would. If you want to read some more scalability
arguments for group and public annotations in general, my paper in the
spring 95 WWW conference is available at:

http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/www/scalable-annotations.html

You cannot assume that a content provider will be willing to carry
ratings by others.

True, but if they do offer them, why not consider them, with due caution?

Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/

- Next message: Fisher Mark: "Re: date in URN"
- Previous message: bede@scotty.mitre.org: "RE: Intelligent Rating Systems"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Grous: "Intelligent Rating Systems"
- Next in thread: R. Martin Roscheisen: "Re: Intelligent Rating Systems"
- Reply: R. Martin Roscheisen: "Re: Intelligent Rating Systems"