The Need for Interoperable Reputation Systems

  • Sandra Steinbrecher
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6555)


Nowadays more and more Internet applications install reputation systems to collect opinions users have about some reputation objects. The opinions are usually formalized in the form of ratings the reputation system can use to build overall reputation profiles of the reputation objects. Reputation objects might be other users, products, web content and anything else that can be rated. Users may investigate the reputation object’s reputation profile to estimate its quality resp. trustworthiness. As there are currently many providers of reputation systems it would be desirable to make reputation information in different systems interoperable or to establish meta reputation systems that collect information from various applications resp. their reputation systems. This process should consider both interoperability of reputation systems themselves and their interoperability with applications, trust and identity management systems as we will discuss in this paper.


Resource Description Framework Identity Management Trust Management Reputation System Trust Game 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Buskens, V., Raub, W.: Embedded trust: Control and learning. In: Lawler, E., Thye, S. (eds.) Group Cohesion, Trust, and Solidarity. Advances in Group Processes, vol. 19, pp. 167–202 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Camerer, C., Weigelt, K.: Experimental tests of a sequential equilibrium reputation model. Econometrica 56, 1–36 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clauß, S., Pfitzmann, A., Hansen, M.: E Van Herreweghen. Privacy-enhancing identity management. The IPTS Report 67, 8–16 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clauß, S., Köhntopp, M.: Identity management and its support of multilateral security. Computer Networks 37(2), 205–219 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dasgupta, P.: Trust as a commodity. In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Department of Sociology, pp. 49–72. University Oxford, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dellarocas, C.: Immunizing online reputation reporting systems against unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior. In: EC 2000: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 150–157. ACM Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dellarocas, C.: The digitization of word-of-mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 1407–1424 (October 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Douceur, J.R.: The sybil attack. In: Druschel, P., Kaashoek, M.F., Rowstron, A. (eds.) IPTPS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2429, pp. 251–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ENISA. Position paper. reputation-based systems: a security analysis (2007), (letzter Abruf September 02, 2008)
  10. 10.
    Friedman, E., Resnick, P.: The social cost of cheap pseudonyms. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 10, 173–199 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar, S.S., Koster, P.: Portable reputation: Proving ownership across portals. In: Proc. of the European Context Awareness and Trust 2009 (EuroCAT 2009), 3rd Workshop on Combining Context with Trust, Security, and Privacy. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 504, pp. 21–30 (September 2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahler, T., Olsen, T.: Reputation systems and data protection law. In: eAdoption and the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies, pp. 180–187. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manola, F., Miller, E.: RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation, W3C (February 2004), (last visited July 01, 2009)
  14. 14.
    Maurer, U.: Modelling a public-key infrastructure. In: Bertino, E. (ed.) ESORICS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1146, pp. 325–350. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mui, L.: Computational Models of Trust and Reputation: Agents, Evolutionary Games, and Social Networks. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pingel, F., Steinbrecher, S.: Multilateral secure cross-community reputation systems. In: Furnell, S.M., Katsikas, S.K., Lioy, A. (eds.) TrustBus 2008. LNCS, vol. 5185, pp. 69–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiffner, S., Clauß, S., Steinbrecher, S.: Privacy and liveliness for reputation systems. In: Martinelli, F., Preneel, B. (eds.) EuroPKI 2009. LNCS, vol. 6391, pp. 209–224. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steinbrecher, S.: Enhancing multilateral security in and by reputation systems. In: Matyáš, V., Fischer-Hübner, S., Cvrček, D., Švenda, P. (eds.) IFIP WG 9.2, 9.6/11.6, 11.7/FIDIS. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 298, pp. 135–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steinbrecher, S., Groß, S., Meichau, M.: Jason: A scalable reputation system for the semantic web. In: Gritzalis, D., Lopez, J. (eds.) SEC 2009. IFIP AICT, vol. 297, pp. 421–431. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Voss, M.: Privacy preserving online reputation systems. In: International Information Security Workshops, pp. 245–260. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Steinbrecher
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät InformatikTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations