Taxonomy issues

From Project VRM
Revision as of 12:50, 3 December 2009 by <bdi>Kelebek</bdi> (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Very much a stub...sorry for the current "stream of consciousness" character of this -- will be cleaning it all up as soon as possible.

There's a lot of work here. RFPs should allow for widely varying degrees of specificity. Ideally, a seeker should be able to create an RFP for:

  • a blackberry 7130c
  • a cell phone with bluetooth and EDGE support
  • a cell phone costing less than $250
  • a cell phone

Even before considering the different attributes required by different types of requests (travel planning vs. product purchase, for example) it's clear that creating a workable microformat for RFPs will be a fascinating (and frustrating) process. It's worth noting, though, that work in this area pays off in many ways.

Desirable: RFP attribute "package," optional, linking multiple RFPs. Indicator to vendors that the seeker is interested in the entire package (implicitly asserting that offers that cover the entire package are preferable/required? Or explicit flag?) -- plane ticket RFP, car rental RFP, hotel RFP, linked by package ID. Five different books, linked by package ID. Possibly worthwhile on both ends: seeker only wants A if they can also get B, vendor can tailor offer/discounts based on total package.

Note to self: Marti's "fulfillment" RFP attribute is an elegant addition. Does seem to suggest that authoritative, verifiable identity for vendors goes from "extremely useful" to "non-negotiable," though. Note also that it makes authoritative seeker identity even more significant: if seekers provide feedback that (is | may be) used to establish vendor reputation as an evaluation factor, there's significant incentive to astroturf.

Suggests the desirability of a parallel reputation system that covers both vendors and seekers. Consider how long an entity has had a public presence, RFP/feedback patterns. Unfortunately seems to also suggest that there could be an actual need for some third-part(y|ies), handling the seeker/vendor DB stuff outlined in the VRM diagram: in addition to pointers to requests/offers, the archive retains history. In this case I guess one would want as many competing versions as possible, so that clients can poll multiple and use their own systems to resolve differing data. sikis izle porno izle sex izle sikis sikis izle sikis hiphop kelebek chat kelebek sohbet chat sohbet chat porno porno izle porno siteleri sex mynet sohbet chat rap kelebek gay chat cinsel sohbet