Re: Development of an object assessment format/protocol

Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> And all of these are great, except: they all use different ways to express
> information.  Some of them can be queried; some can't.  Some of them carry
> metadata like "how did we decide this?" or 'when did we decide this?" or
> "for further reference, see:" and some don't.
> Some of them support methods for asking narrower/broader questions,
> some of them don't.

Is the reason different sources use different ways to express information the fact that there is no suitable protocol? Or is it a mere consequence of the fact that sources have different things they are willing and able to share?

I think the idea is nice. Whether such a format is really needed I'm not sure. I can see how having more information available makes for better decisions, but I am worried the accuracy gained isn't worth the performance lost.

Perhaps you can come up with examples of where such a protocol would be useful?

Martijn.


________________________________

Virus Bulletin Ltd, The Pentagon, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, England.
Company Reg No: 2388295. VAT Reg No: GB 532 5598 33.