Abstract:
Trust-based relationships may be formed among many types of entities, and such entities may wish to rely on such relationships as part of a trust profile in future endeavors. However, it may be difficult to compile records of existing trust-based relationships into a trust profile in a credible and efficient manner. Techniques may be developed for centralizing the formation and management of a trust profile for the entity in an efficient manner that both promotes the integrity of the compiled information and extends to the entity a measure of control over the contents of the trust profile.

Description:
BACKGROUND 
       [0001]    Trust has long been valued as evidence of character and reliability of an entity, such as an individual, an organization, a company, or a government. The trust record is compiled from past actions and behaviors of a positive, negative, neutral, and/or indeterminate nature, which together comprise a record of the entity&#39;s past actions that may serve as a predictor of reliability in future interactions. Many types of trust information are available, based on different sources of information; e.g., a commercial trust record may be established by the reliability of the user in commercial transactions, while a personal trust record may be established by the involvement of the user in a community group, such as a volunteering organization. 
         [0002]    Many types of trust information may be available through various agencies. For example, a commercial transaction site may report the user&#39;s reliability as a set of feedback ratings from various commercial partners who have transacted with the user; a community group may provide metrics, such as hours of volunteerism donated to the organization; and a hobbyist group may provide an anecdotal narrative written by associates illustrating the trustworthiness of the user. Some of these agencies often maintain a tight degree of control over data acquisition, aggregation, and reporting in the interests of consistency, security, and privacy. 
       SUMMARY 
       [0003]    This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key factors or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter. 
         [0004]    Although many types of trust record information may be available regarding an entity (such as an individual, an organization, a company, or a government), the uses of such information may be limited in several aspects. As a first example, many sources of trustworthiness information may be stored only in an informal manner (e.g., by contacting an organization to request information about a member), and may be unavailable in a standardized form. As a second example, the trust information gathered by each collecting agency may be of a very specific type, and may be limited to a particular role or use; e.g., a commercial agency may only indicate the reliability of the user in completing commercial transactions, and a hobbyist organization may only be cognizant of the user&#39;s reliability in social situations. As a third example, compiling a detailed record of the entity&#39;s trust profile may involve a lengthy and complicated solicitation of information from a large and varied set of sources of trust information. As a fourth example, the entity may have little or no control over which sources of information may contribute to the trust record of the entity; e.g., an individual may have very little control over the contents of his or her commercial transaction record, and may be deterred or prevented from disputing, correcting, and responding to misrepresentations, contextually skewed information, and out-of-date information. 
         [0005]    Due to these and other factors, it may be difficult to examine and summarize an individual&#39;s trust record based on many types of trust information. When an entity joins a new community, such as an individual subscribing as a member of a website, the entity may be unable to present or rely upon a positive trust record that the entity may have earned through positive transactions with various other types of communities. Instead, the entity may have to begin building a new trust profile within the new community, and other members of the community may be unable to ascertain the trustworthiness and reliability of the entity as a new community member without the benefit of referencing sources of previously compiled trust information. 
         [0006]    These limitations of trust profiling may be ameliorated through the development of a trust profiling organization, which may utilize various techniques to retrieve, compile, and present a profile of the trustworthiness of an entity. The trust reporting may begin with the creation of a trust profile for the entity, which may be initiated (e.g.) upon request of the entity. The trust profile of the entity may be filled with trustworthiness information received from trust record sources, which may be named by the entity as independent sources of trust information. For example, the entity may provide a list of trust record sources that may contribute to the entity&#39;s trust profile, and the trust profiling organization may contact each trust record source to request a trust profile of the entity. The collected information may be stored to represent the entity&#39;s trustworthiness, and may be supplemented, updated, maintained, and/or reported to various trust reporting agencies in order to evidence the trustworthiness of the entity. 
         [0007]    To the accomplishment of the foregoing and related ends, the following description and annexed drawings set forth certain illustrative aspects and implementations. These are indicative of but a few of the various ways in which one or more aspects may be employed. Other aspects, advantages, and novel features of the disclosure will become apparent from the following detailed description when considered in conjunction with the annexed drawings. 
     
    
     
       DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0008]      FIG. 1  is an illustration of an exemplary scenario illustrating a compiling and representing of a trust profile of an entity. 
           [0009]      FIG. 2  is an illustration of another exemplary scenario illustrating a compiling and representing of a trust profile of an entity. 
           [0010]      FIG. 3A  is an illustration of an exemplary interaction involved in the representing of a trust profile of an entity. 
           [0011]      FIG. 3B  is an illustration of another exemplary interaction involved in the representing of a trust profile of an entity. 
           [0012]      FIG. 3C  is an illustration of still another exemplary interaction involved in the representing of a trust profile of an entity. 
           [0013]      FIG. 3D  is an illustration of still another exemplary interaction involved in the representing of a trust profile of an entity. 
           [0014]      FIG. 4  is an illustration of still another exemplary scenario illustrating a compiling and representing of a trust profile of an entity. 
           [0015]      FIG. 5  is a flow chart illustrating an exemplary method of representing the trust profile of an entity. 
           [0016]      FIG. 6  is a flow chart illustrating another exemplary method of representing the trust profile of an entity. 
           [0017]      FIG. 7  is a component block diagram illustrating an exemplary system for representing the trust profile of an entity. 
           [0018]      FIG. 8  illustrates an exemplary computing environment wherein one or more of the provisions set forth herein may be implemented. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       [0019]    The claimed subject matter is now described with reference to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals are used to refer to like elements throughout. In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the claimed subject matter. It may be evident, however, that the claimed subject matter may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, structures and devices are shown in block diagram form in order to facilitate describing the claimed subject matter. 
         [0020]    The actions of an entity (such as an individual, an organization, a company, or a government) may result in a set of information that represents the trustworthiness of the entity. This set of trust information may include observations by others who interact with the entity. For example, an individual&#39;s trustworthiness may involve observations of the individual by the individual&#39;s school teachers and professors, employers and colleagues, lenders, and commercial partners, and may relate to the individual&#39;s trustworthiness, reliability, capabilities, assets, liabilities, etc. This trust information may be highly valued as a predictor of the entity&#39;s future behavior; e.g., a company with a good credit review is likely to service a current or future loan better than a company with a bad credit review. Accordingly, current and future associates of the entity (such as commercial partners, employers, and financial institutions) may wish to evaluate the trustworthiness of the entity before deciding on the extent of a potential interaction with the entity. This evaluation may benefit an entity that has compiled a more favorable trust profile, and may provide notice of caution while interacting with an entity that has compiled a less favorable trust profile (e.g., a financial institution may wish to secure a greater amount of collateral before lending to an entity with an unfavorable credit score.) 
         [0021]      FIG. 1  illustrates an exemplary scenario  10  involving an entity  12  (in this scenario, an individual) who has cultivated a relationship set  14  comprising relationships  16  with various sources. For example, the individual may have developed a leadership relationship with a volunteer organization, a hobbyist group, a community group, an employment relationship with an employer, and an e-commerce site, all of which have built relationships with the individual and may be able to attest to the trustworthiness of the individual. A second party may wish to evaluate certain aspects of the trustworthiness of the entity  12 , and the entity  12  may consent to such evaluation; for example, the individual may apply for a position with a new employer, who wishes to review the trustworthiness of the individual before hiring him or her as an employee. The entity  12  and the second party may therefore cooperate to complete an evaluation of the trustworthiness of the employee, and the second party may seek evidence of the individual&#39;s trustworthiness from the parties with whom the entity  12  has cultivated relationships. Accordingly, the second party (as a requester  24 ) may request information from each related party (as a trust record source  18 ), each of which may provide a trust profile  22  to the requester  24  (pending the consent of the entity  12 .) The trust profiles  22  may collectively comprise a representation of the trust profile  20  of the entity  12 , which may be provided for evaluation to the requester  24  as evidence of the conduct of the entity  12  in past transactions. 
         [0022]    However, as further illustrated in the scenario  10  of  FIG. 1 , this evaluation may not be a simple matter. As a first example, and in many scenarios, the requester  24  may have to initiate contact and file a request with each trust record source  18 , which may be complicated and time-consuming. Moreover, each trust record source  18  may have a different protocol for requesting and providing trust profiles  22 ; e.g., a first trust record source  18  may provide a website for requesting and viewing such information, while a second trust record source  18  may handle requests via email, and a third trust record source  18  may only provide information during an in-person meeting. As a second example, each trust record source  18  may provide a different type of trust profile  22 , and it may be difficult to aggregate the trust profiles  22  in a fair, consistent, and objective manner. Even trust profiles  22  of a similar nature may be differently specified; e.g., e-commerce sites may develop different metrics for the trust profile and rating of the entity  18 . As a result, different requesters  24  may differently weigh the comparative merits of an employment relationship and an academic relationship, leading to potentially inconsistent and subjective evaluations. As a third example, a trust profile  22  may be prepared in view of a specific perspective or use, and may exclude information that is not consistent with that perspective or use but that may be relevant to the requester  24 . For example, a volunteer organization may prepare a trust profile  22  indicating the number of hours of service, but may not identify the types of service provided or personal anecdotes that support the assertion of trustworthiness. 
         [0023]    Several disadvantages arise from these difficulties. As a first example, it may be difficult or prohibitive for a requester  24  to prepare and review a trust profile for an entity  12 . Such information may also be incomplete, inconsistent, contradictory, or out-of-date. Because of the informal nature of the requesting and reporting processes, an entity  12  may have difficulty securing the privacy of its trust profile; e.g., trust record sources  18  may be unable to contact the entity  12  or verify that a particular request for trust information is made with the consent of the entity  12 . An entity  12  may also have difficulty addressing the contents of its trust profile, and may be deterred or prevented from correcting misinformation or selecting particular trust record sources  18  for reporting (e.g., an entity  12  may have difficulty preventing a potential employer from contacting a current employer, which may result in an unfairly negative reference and/or a loss of the current employment.) 
         [0024]      FIG. 2  illustrates another scenario  30  wherein a trust profile  20  of an entity  12  may be represented by a central trust reporting agency in the form of a credit bureau  32 . The credit bureau  32  arranges to collect financial information from various lenders (serving as trust record sources  18 ) who have previously transacted with the entity  12 . The entity  12  grants consent to such monitoring by the credit bureau  32  as a condition of receiving loans from the respective lenders. The credit bureau  32  thereby maintains a credit history for the entity  12 , and may disclose this information to qualified requesters  24  (subject to certain qualifications, including a consent by the entity  12  for such requester  24  to access the credit report managed by the credit bureau  32 .) In this manner, the credit bureau  32  thereby represents the trust profile  20  of the entity  12  as a trust profile  22  in the form of a credit score and credit history. 
         [0025]    The exemplary scenario  30  of  FIG. 2  has some advantages over the exemplary scenario  10  of  FIG. 1 . As a first example, the requester  24  may obtain a trust profile  22  from a reliable centralized agency through well-established procedures. As a second example, the reported information may be more easily normalized and evaluated in a more objective manner, e.g., with reference to information about credit score standards. As a third example, because the set of information periodically reported by each lender is constrained to a small set of factual information (e.g., the status of an account, the credit limit and periodic total, and the reliability of the entity  12  in servicing the debt), the collection of information by the credit bureau may be readily automated for easier, more accurate, and continuously up-to-date processing. As a fourth example, legal regulations placed on credit bureaus may facilitate the entity  12  in correcting information that is out of date or is incorrectly reported by various lenders. 
         [0026]    However, the exemplary scenario  30  of  FIG. 2  also presents some disadvantages. As a first example, the entity  12  has very little control over the contents of the trust profile  22 , since all lenders regularly report to the credit bureau, which synthesizes all of the information to generate the trust profile  22 . The involvement of the entity  12  is limited to correcting inaccuracies, such as the address or the amount of a loan. As a second example, the information reported by the credit bureau is very specific to the credit history of the entity  12 , and usually does not even include related financial information, such as income, owned assets, and receivables owned by the entity  12 , all of which may be relevant to the requester  24  in many types of assessments involving an evaluation of a credit history (e.g., whether to issue a new loan.) As a third example, the trust profile  22  has little or no capacity for non-financial information, such as employment status or academic credentials, and therefore may be useful only for a narrow range of inquiries. 
         [0027]    The exemplary scenario  10  of  FIG. 1  and the exemplary scenario  30  of  FIG. 2  therefore illustrate some disadvantages with various techniques for collecting, compiling, and reporting the trust profile  20  of an entity  12 . An improved technique may be devised for representing the trust profile  20  of an entity  12  that balances the range of information that may be contained in the trust profile  20  and an improved degree of control by the entity  12  over the contents of the trust profile  22  against the convenience of centralized report collection (such as by a credit bureau) and the improved accuracy and freshness of automated information gathering. The application of such techniques may enable the development of a trust reporting service that is both appreciated by entities  12  as a fair and responsive service, while also providing authorized requesters  24  with a convenient source of broad, accurate information about the trust profile  20  of the entity  12 . 
         [0028]      FIGS. 3A-3D  together illustrate one such technique for representing the trust profile  20  of an entity  12 , wherein the information is gathered by a trust profiler  32  that cooperatively interacts with the entity  12 , trust record sources  18 , and requesters  24 . The technique presented herein involves four basic interactions among these parties, illustrated in turn in  FIGS. 3A-3D . 
         [0029]    In the exemplary interaction  40  of  FIG. 3A , the entity  12  may initiate the creation of a trust profile  44 , which comprises the set of trust information reported by various parties who have interacted with the entity  12 . The entity  12  may therefore send to the trust profiler  42  a request  46  to create a new trust profile  44  for the entity  12 . The trust profiler  42  may respond by creating a new trust profile  44 , which may initially be empty (i.e., may contain only some basic identity and demographic information about the entity  12 .) 
         [0030]    In the exemplary interaction  50  of  FIG. 3B , the entity  12  may wish to fill its trust profile  44  with trust information. The entity  12  may therefore send the trust profiler  32  a set of relationship assertions  52 , each asserting that the entity  12  has established some type of relationship with a particular trust record source  18 . For example, the entity  12  may indicate that trust information may be available and reported by (e.g.) a volunteer organization, a hobbyist group, a community group, and an e-commerce site. The trust profiler  32  may therefore initiate contact with each trust record source  18 , and may send a trust record request  54  to each trust record source  18 , which requests any information that the trust record source  18  may provide regarding the trust profile  20  of the entity  12 . The trust profiler  32  may not add any information to the trust profile  44  of the entity  12  until relevant information arrives from the trust record sources  18 . 
         [0031]    In the exemplary interaction  60  of  FIG. 3C , the trust profiler  32  may receive one or more trust records  62  from the various trust record sources  18 . Such information may be as limited as the acknowledgment of a relationship  16  between the trust record source  18  and the entity  12 , as specific as a detailed account of the activities of the entity  12  with the trust record source  18  (e.g., an e-commerce site may report a complete list of transactions and detailed feedback from each transaction party who has interacted with the entity  12 ), or an intermediate level of detail (e.g., a summary set of feedback ratings, or even a single rating, indicating the overall reliability of the entity  12  in commercial transactions.) The trust profiler  32  may receive and store these trust records  62  in the trust profile  34  of the entity  12 . 
         [0032]    In the exemplary interaction  70  of  FIG. 3D , the trust profiler  32  may receive a trust profile request  72  from a requester  24  that solicits some information about the trust profile  20  of the entity  12 . The trust profiler  32  may therefore retrieve the trust profile  34  of the entity  12 , and may prepare and send to the requester  24  a trust profile  22  that details the complete set (or a portion thereof) of trust information received from the trust record sources  18 . 
         [0033]    The interactions illustrated in  FIGS. 3A-3D  therefore present an alternative technique for compiling a trust profile  20  of an entity  12  and generating a trust profile  22  based on the information received from a variety of trust record sources  18 . In comparison with the decentralized exemplary scenario  10  of  FIG. 1  and the tightly centralized exemplary scenario  30  of  FIG. 2 , this alternative technique results in a trust profile comprising many types of trust information derived from many types of sources, and also permits the entity  12  greater control over the sources consulted for such information. 
         [0034]      FIG. 4  illustrates an exemplary scenario  80  featuring a trust profile  22  generated in this manner. As in the exemplary interactions of  FIGS. 3A-3D , the trust profiler  32  receives an initial request from the entity  12  to generate the trust profile  34 , and subsequently fills the trust profile  34  with trust records  62  provided by respective trust record sources  18  upon request by the entity  12 . When the trust profile  22  of the entity  12  is subsequently requested by an authorized requester  24 , the trust profiler  32  may then use the trust records  62  in the trust profile  34  to prepare a trust profile  22  as a set of trust records  62 . For example, each trust record  62  may specify the trust record source  18 , a relationship descriptor  82  that describes the relationship  16  between the entity  12  and the respective trust record source  18  (e.g., a relationship type descriptor that specifies, e.g., a volunteering relationship with a volunteer organization, a member relationship with a hobbyist group and a community group, and a seller relationship with an e-commerce site), and a relationship rating  84  that indicates the quality of the relationship as reported by the respective relationship source (e.g., volunteerism metrics reported by the volunteerism group, trustworthiness-related anecdotes reported by a community group, and a seller feedback rating earned through the e-commerce site.) The trust profile  22 , compiled in this manner with cooperative control shared among the entity  12 , the trust record sources  18 , and the trust profiler  32 , may then be provided to the requester  24  as evidence of the trust profile  20  of the entity  12 . 
         [0035]      FIG. 5  illustrates a first embodiment of these techniques, comprising an exemplary method  90  of representing the trustworthiness of an entity, in accordance with the techniques illustrated in the exemplary interactions of  FIGS. 3A-3D . The exemplary method  90  begins at  92  and involves generating  94  a trust profile upon receiving from the entity a request to generate a trust profile (such as illustrated in  FIG. 3A .) The exemplary method  90  also involves requesting  96  a trust record of the entity from a trust record source upon receiving from the entity a relationship assertion specifying the trust record source (such as illustrated in  FIG. 3B .) The exemplary method  90  also involves storing  98  trust records in the trust profile of the entity receiving such trust records from the trust record sources (such as illustrated in  FIG. 3C .) The exemplary method  90  also involves providing  100  the trust profile upon receiving a request for the trust profile of the entity (such as illustrated in  FIG. 3D .) Having compiled the trust profile in a cooperative manner with both the entity and the trust record sources, and having provided a representation of the trust profile upon request, the exemplary method  90  thereby achieves the representing of the trustworthiness of the entity in accordance with the techniques discussed herein, and so ends at  102 . 
         [0036]      FIG. 6  illustrates a second embodiment of the techniques discussed herein, also represented as an exemplary method  110  of representing the trustworthiness of an entity, in accordance with the technique illustrated in  FIG. 4 . The exemplary method  110  begins at  112  and involves representing  114  the trustworthiness of the entity as a trust profile comprising at least one trust record, where such trust records are generated by a trust record source and representing a relationship of the entity with the trust record source, and are generated in response to a relationship assertion received from the entity and specifying the trust record source. The respective trust records represented by this exemplary method  110  therefore comprise the trust record source, at least one relationship descriptor describing the nature of the relationship of the entity with the relationship source, and at least one relationship rating describing the quality of the relationship according to the relationship source. By providing the trust profile comprising trust records containing such information and generated by the trust record sources at the request of the entity, the exemplary method  110  thereby achieves the representing of the trustworthiness of the entity in accordance with the techniques discussed herein, and so ends at  116 . 
         [0037]      FIG. 7  illustrates an exemplary scenario  120  featuring a third embodiment of the techniques discussed herein, comprising an exemplary system  122  for representing the trustworthiness of an entity  12 . The exemplary system  122  cooperatively interacts with the entity  12  and a set of trust record sources  18  that may provide trust information to be synthesized into the represented trustworthiness of the entity  12 , and may be provided, e.g., to a requester  24  who seeks information as to the trustworthiness of the entity  12 . The exemplary system  122  comprises a trust profile store  124 , which is configured to store trust records  62  comprising a trust profile of the entity  12 . The exemplary system  122  also includes a trust profile generating component  126 , which is configured, upon receiving from the entity  12  a request to generate the trust profile, to generate the trust profile in the trust profile store  124 . The exemplary system  122  also comprises a trust profile compiling component  128 , which is configured, upon receiving from the entity  12  a relationship assertion specifying a trust record source  18 , to request a trust record  62  of the entity  12  from the trust record source  18 . The trust profile compiling component  128  is also configured, upon receiving the trust record  62  from a trust record source  18 , to store the trust record  62  with the trust profile of the entity  12  in the trust profile store  124 . The exemplary system  122  also includes a trust reporting component  130 , which is configured, upon receiving a request for the trust profile of the entity  12 , to provide the trust profile, e.g., in the form of a trust profile  22  such as the exemplary trust profile  22  illustrated in  FIG. 4 . The interoperating components of this exemplary system  122  thereby achieve the compiling of a trust profile of the entity  12  from the information provided by the trust record sources  18  and the reporting of the trust profile of the entity  12  upon request. 
         [0038]    The techniques discussed herein may be devised with variations in many aspects, and some variations may present additional advantages and/or reduce disadvantages with respect to other variations of these and other techniques. Moreover, some variations may be implemented in combination, and some combinations may feature additional advantages and/or reduced disadvantages through synergistic cooperation. The variations may be incorporated in various embodiments (e.g., the exemplary method  90  of FIG.  5 , the exemplary method  110  of  FIG. 6 , and the exemplary system  122  of  FIG. 7 ) to confer individual and/or synergistic advantages upon such embodiments. 
         [0039]    A first aspect that may vary among embodiments of these techniques relates to the types of relationships and trust record sources included in the trust profile and the trust profile generated therefrom. As a first example, the trust profile may include many types of relationship types with various trust record sources. For instance, a volunteer organization may provide trust information for an entity having one or more of several types of relationships with the organization: a volunteering relationship, an employee relationship, and a financial donor relationship, and each type of relationship may have different trustworthiness-describing metrics. In one such variation, the trust records may specify a relationship category between the entity and the trust record source; e.g., the relationship category may be chosen from a set of relationship types including a commercial relationship, a professional relationship, an academic relationship, a special interest relationship, a social network relationship, a community relationship, and a volunteer relationship. 
         [0040]    As a second example of this first aspect, and in contrast with the exemplary scenarios of  FIGS. 1 and 2 , the trust profile may include a comparatively broad set of trust record sources that provide a more diverse set of trust information, thereby producing a more comprehensive portrayal of the entity. For instance, the trust record sources may include conventional sources of trust-based information, such as a credit bureau that provides trust profiles including a credit score as a trustworthiness rating. The trust record sources may also include less conventional sources of trust-based information, such as organizations with which the entity has a membership relationship. The organization may therefore serve as a trust record source by providing a trust profile describing the entity&#39;s activities in the organization and the quality of the relationship so established. For instance, the organization may comprise an internet-based community, such as a web forum to which the entity has belonged and has contributed, or an e-commerce site through which the entity has purchased and/or sold goods or services. Many types of relationships and trust record sources may therefore be compiled in the trust profile and included in the trust profile as part of the representation of the entity. 
         [0041]    A second aspect that may vary among embodiments of these techniques relates to the organization of information in the trust records and the trust profile and the reporting of such information in a trust profile. As a first example, and as illustrated the exemplary scenario  80  of  FIG. 4 , a trust profile  62  may comprise the identity of the trust record source  18 , one or more relationship descriptors  82  that describe the nature of the relationship  16  of the entity  12  with the relationship source  18 , and one or more relationship ratings  84 , which together bear on the trustworthiness of the entity  12 . 
         [0042]    As a further variation of this example, the trust record may contain a series of relationship descriptors that together describe the relationship of the entity with the trust record source. For instance, a first relationship descriptor may relate the duration of the relationship; a second relationship descriptor may relate the contribution of the entity to the relationship (e.g., a ranking of trading success and reliability attained by a seller through an e-commerce site, or a qualitative measure of participation of the entity in a community); a third relationship descriptor may relate to one or more transactions taken by the entity within the relationship (e.g., one or more trades made through an e-commerce site); and a fourth relationship descriptor may relate to one or more activities performed by the entity that do not directly relate to the primary nature of the relationship, but that are relevant to the relationship and indicative of the trustworthiness of the entity (e.g., extracurricular activity participation by a student; testing, reviewing, and/or dispute adjudicating participation by a trading member of an e-commerce site; or side projects completed by an employee.) In a still further variation of this example, the relationship ratings may relate to respective relationship descriptors; e.g., each relationship descriptor may have an associated relationship rating, and together these relationship ratings may indicate the composite quality of the relationship. For example, a credit score (as a qualitative measure of the financial trustworthiness of a user with a particular lender or credit bureau) is often obtained by considering several factors for each trust record (respectively representing accounts representing loans or lines of credit), such as the maximum amount of the account, the principle debt in the account, the age of the account, and the regularity of the servicing of the debt by the entity. Each such factor may comprise a relationship descriptor of a relationship record representing an account, and each relationship descriptor may be separately rated by a relationship rating to indicate the quality of the relationship of the entity with the creditor as a trust record source. 
         [0043]    A second example of this second aspect, the trust profile and trust records may aggregate some elements for easier computation or evaluation. In a first such variation, a trust record may comprise at least one aggregated relationship rating associated with a trust record and describing the quality of the relationship according to the trust record source. For instance, where a trust record represents a debt or line of credit having several relationship ratings for various aspects of the account (e.g., a first relationship rating for the amount of the account, a second relationship rating for the age of the account, and a third relationship rating for the reliability of servicing), the trust record may contain an aggregated score that represents the net impact of the account on the financial trustworthiness of the entity. In a second such variation, the trust profile may comprise at least one aggregated relationship rating associated with at least two trust records and describing the quality of at least two relationships of the entity with at least two trust record sources. For example, the trust profile may contain an aggregated trust rating for the overall trustworthiness of the entity based on all of the trust records, or may contain a series of trust ratings respectively based on particular types of trust records (e.g., an academic trust rating for the academic trustworthiness of the entity based on the trust records of an academic relationship type; a financial trust rating for the financial trustworthiness of the entity based on the trust records of a financial relationship type; etc.) Such aggregated ratings may be precomputed and stored in the trust profile, or may be computed from the information in the trust profile while generating the trust record. The aggregation of such relationship ratings and other elements may facilitate the evaluation of the trustworthiness of the entity by various requesters, and may promote consistency of evaluation among requesters. Those of ordinary skill in the art may devise many organizations and contents of trust profiles and trust profiles while implementing the techniques discussed herein. 
         [0044]    A third aspect that may vary among implementations of these techniques relates to the manner of compiling and reporting the trust profile, which may supplement or extend the exemplary interactions illustrated in  FIGS. 3A-3D . A first example relates to the manner in which an entity  12  may specify a relationship assertion  52  with a particular trust record source  18 . In one such embodiment, the trust profiler  32  may simply act on any trust record source  18  specified by the entity  12 , and may seek to verify the relationship and obtain a trust profile from the specified trust record source  18 . For instance, the trust record request  54  may simply comprise an email message sent to the trust record source  18  and requesting the completion of a web form that comprises the trust record  62 . In another such embodiment, the trust profiler  32  may compile a trust record source dataset, which contains details about known trust record sources. For example, the trust profiler  32  may then offer the names of trust record sources  18  stored in the trust record source dataset to the entity  12  for selection, or may simply compare the names of specified trust record sources  18  specified by the entity  12  with the names of trust record sources  18  stored in the trust record source dataset. The trust profiler  32  may therefore process the relationship assertion  52  by searching the trust record source dataset for the specified trust record source, and may use the information in the dataset to interact with the trust record source. In a further variation of this first example, the trust record source dataset may associate with each trust record source a trust record requesting protocol, whereby the trust profiler  32  may correctly file a trust record request  54  with the trust record source  18 . For example, a first trust record source  18  may handle trust record requests  54  received through a web form or web service available at a particular URL, while a second trust record source  18  may handle trust record requests  54  through the completion and delivery by fax or mail of a paper document, and a third trust record source  18  may handle trust record requests  54  only through an in-person meeting or via email. The trust profiler  32  may therefore utilize the trust record requesting protocol associated with the trust record source in the trust record source dataset to act on the relationship assertion  52  received from the entity  12 . 
         [0045]    As another variation of this example, the trust profiler  32  may maintain the trust record source dataset by adding new trust record sources  18  that are specified by an entity but that are not yet known to the trust profiler  32 . Such maintenance may be valuable, e.g., where the trust record sources may include web-based communities, which tend to be prolific and widely distributed, and are therefore not easily tracked in a comprehensive trust record source dataset. In this variation, upon failing to find a trust record source in the trust record source dataset that is specified by an entity  12  in a relationship assertion  52 , the trust profiler  32  may contact the new trust record source  18  to identify or request from the trust record source  18  a trust record requesting protocol. Upon receiving or identifying such a protocol, the trust profiler  32  may store in the trust record source dataset both the new trust record source  18  and the identified or received trust record requesting protocol, and may also use this information to submit a trust record request  54  to the trust record source  18  in response to the relationship assertion  52  of the entity  12 . 
         [0046]    In some scenarios, a particular trust record source  18  may not have developed a trust record requesting protocol, or may not be willing to provide trust records to the trust profiler  32 . However, the trust profiler  32  may receive relationship assertions by a potentially large number of entities who have established relationships with the trust record source  18 , and who wish to use the trust record source  18  as a source of trust information. In these scenarios, the trust record source  18  may therefore utilize the aggregate interest of the entities to solicit the trust record source  18  to cooperate in the trust profiling by developing a trust record requesting protocol. For example, the trust profiler  32  may devise a petition directed to the attention of the trust record source  18 , and may permit the entities to ascribe to the petition. 
         [0047]    In one such embodiment, upon failing to receive a trust record requesting protocol from the trust record source  18 , the trust profiler  32  may generate a trust record source protocol petition, and may add the entity  12  to the trust record source protocol petition. Upon receiving a relationship assertion from at least one additional entity (i.e., from further entities who wish to use the trust record source  18  as a source of trust information), the additional entities may be added to the trust record source protocol petition. Finally, the trust profiler  32  may send the trust record requesting petition to the trust record source  18 . In this manner, the trust profiler  32  may attempt to compel the cooperation of the trust record source  18  in the trust profiling scenario. Those of ordinary skill in the art may devise many ways of generating the trust record source dataset, and uses thereof, while implementing the techniques discussed herein. 
         [0048]    A second example of this third aspect relates the manner of generating the trust profile. In one such variation, the trust profile may be generated for a particular requester  24 , and the generating may take into account the nature of the requester. For instance, the requester  24  may be interested in only particular types of trust information, such as academic and professional, and the trust profile  22  may contain only those types of trust records  62 . Alternatively or additionally, the requester  24  may only be authorized to access particular types of information (e.g., the requester  24  may be a potential employer who is permitted to view only academic and employment information, but may not view the portions of the trust profile  34  of the entity  12  relating to community activities or financial trustworthiness.) The trust profile  22  generated for such a requester  24  may therefore only comprise the viewable trust records, and/or viewable portions thereof, according to the viewing permissions of the requester  24 . Those of ordinary skill in the art may devise many ways of generating trust profiles  22  for various requesters  24 , and in view of various privacy and relevancy concerns of the entity  12 , while implementing the techniques discussed herein. 
         [0049]    A third example of this third aspect relates to the updating of the trust profile  34  of the entity  12 , which may be performed in order to maintain the currency of the trust profile  20  of the entity  12 . In one such variation, the trust profile  34  may associate an expiration date with various trust records  62 , and may remove such trust records  62  after the expiration date. In another such variation, the trust profiler  32  may periodically request an updated trust record  62  from the trust record sources  18  for a particular entity  12 , and may store the updated trust records  62  in the trust profile  34  of the entity  12  (replacing or supplementing the previously received trust records  62  from these trust record sources  18 .) Those of ordinary skill in the art may devise many ways of updating the trust profile  34  of the entity  12  while implementing the techniques discussed herein. 
         [0050]    A fourth example of this third aspect relates to the control of trust information by the entity  12  in the trust profile  34 , which may be updated upon request of the entity  12 . In one such variation, the entity  12  may be permitted to annotate or comment upon trust information, and the comments of the entity  12  may be included in the trust profile  34  and/or trust profiles  22  generated therefrom. In another such variation, upon receiving from the entity  12  a removal request of a trust record  62  from the trust profile  34  of the entity  12 , the trust profiler  32  may remove the trust record  62  from the trust profile  34 . This may be performed in order to promote the degree of control of the entity  12  over the contents of the trust profile  34 , e.g., where such information is out of date, now incorrect, or simply no longer of interest to the entity  12  as part of the entity&#39;s trust profile  34 . Certain conditions may be placed on the removal of such information; e.g., in one such variation, the entity  12  may only be permitted to remove a trust record  62  after one year of inclusion in the trust profile  34 . Those of ordinary skill in the art may devise many techniques for allowing an entity  12  to update or remove information from the trust profile  34  while implementing the techniques discussed herein. 
         [0051]    A fourth aspect that may vary among embodiments of these techniques relates to authentication issues. It may be appreciated that the compiling and reporting of a trust profile  34  of an entity  12  may raise many issues of privacy, authenticity, and identity, and many opportunities for abuse such as for unauthorized access to sensitive trust details, impersonation and identity theft, and falsification of information (e.g., falsely positive information inserted by the entity  12  in order to improve the trust profile  20  of the entity  12 , and/or falsely negative information inserted by an adversary of the entity  12  in order to damage the trust profile  20  of the entity.) Accordingly, the various parties who are involved in the compiling of the trust profile may be authenticated in various ways to establish and verify the identities of such parties. As a first example, upon receiving a request to generate a trust profile  34  for an entity  12 , the trust profiler  32  may authenticate that the request is made on behalf of the entity  12 . For instance, the trust profiler  32  may request from the entity  12  at least one entity credential authenticating the identity of the entity  12  (e.g., a mother&#39;s maiden name or social security number), and upon receiving the at least one entity credential, may authenticate the identity of the entity  12  according to the at least one entity credential. As a second example, upon receiving a relationship assertion from the entity  12  specifying a trust record source  18 , the trust profiler  32  may request from the entity  12  at least one relationship credential authenticating the relationship  16  of the entity  12  with the trust record source  18  (e.g., a username and password used by the entity  12  on a web-based community); and upon receiving the at least one relationship credential, the trust profiler  32  may authenticate the relationship of the entity  12  with the trust record source  18  according to the at least one relationship credential. As a third example, the trust profiler  32  may authenticate the identity and permissions of a requester  24  of a trust profile  22  before generating and providing the trust profile  22 . For instance, upon receiving the trust profile request  72 , the trust profiler  32  may request at least one requester credential authenticating the identity of the requester  24 ; and upon receiving the at least one requester credential from the requester  24 , the trust profiler  32  may authenticate the identity of the requester  24  according to the at least one requester credential. Those of ordinary skill in the art may identify many occasions for authenticating the identities of parties involved in the trust profiling and reporting while implementing the techniques discussed herein. 
         [0052]    Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims. 
         [0053]    As used in this application, the terms “component,” “module,” “system”, “interface”, and the like are generally intended to refer to a computer-related entity, either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution. For example, a component may be, but is not limited to being, a process running on a processor, a processor, an object, an executable, a thread of execution, a program, and/or a computer. By way of illustration, both an application running on a controller and the controller can be a component. One or more components may reside within a process and/or thread of execution and a component may be localized on one computer and/or distributed between two or more computers. 
         [0054]    Furthermore, the claimed subject matter may be implemented as a method, apparatus, or article of manufacture using standard programming and/or engineering techniques to produce software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof to control a computer to implement the disclosed subject matter. The term “article of manufacture” as used herein is intended to encompass a computer program accessible from any computer-readable device, carrier, or media. Of course, those skilled in the art will recognize many modifications may be made to this configuration without departing from the scope or spirit of the claimed subject matter. 
         [0055]      FIG. 8  and the following discussion provide a brief, general description of a suitable computing environment to implement embodiments of one or more of the provisions set forth herein. The operating environment of  FIG. 8  is only one example of a suitable operating environment and is not intended to suggest any limitation as to the scope of use or functionality of the operating environment. Example computing devices include, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, mobile devices (such as mobile phones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), media players, and the like), multiprocessor systems, consumer electronics, mini computers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like. 
         [0056]    Although not required, embodiments are described in the general context of “computer readable instructions” being executed by one or more computing devices. Computer readable instructions may be distributed via computer readable media (discussed below). Computer readable instructions may be implemented as program modules, such as functions, objects, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), data structures, and the like, that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Typically, the functionality of the computer readable instructions may be combined or distributed as desired in various environments. 
         [0057]      FIG. 8  illustrates an example of a system  140  comprising a computing device  142  configured to implement one or more embodiments provided herein. In one configuration, computing device  142  includes at least one processing unit  146  and memory  148 . Depending on the exact configuration and type of computing device, memory  148  may be volatile (such as RAM, for example), non-volatile (such as ROM, flash memory, etc., for example) or some combination of the two. This configuration is illustrated in  FIG. 8  by dashed line  144 . 
         [0058]    In other embodiments, device  142  may include additional features and/or functionality. For example, device  142  may also include additional storage (e.g., removable and/or non-removable) including, but not limited to, magnetic storage, optical storage, and the like. Such additional storage is illustrated in  FIG. 8  by storage  150 . In one embodiment, computer readable instructions to implement one or more embodiments provided herein may be in storage  150 . Storage  150  may also store other computer readable instructions to implement an operating system, an application program, and the like. Computer readable instructions may be loaded in memory  148  for execution by processing unit  146 , for example. 
         [0059]    The term “computer readable media” as used herein includes computer storage media. Computer storage media includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions or other data. Memory  148  and storage  150  are examples of computer storage media. Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, Digital Versatile Disks (DVDs) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by device  142 . Any such computer storage media may be part of device  142 . 
         [0060]    Device  142  may also include communication connection(s)  156  that allows device  142  to communicate with other devices. Communication connection(s)  156  may include, but is not limited to, a modem, a Network Interface Card (NIC), an integrated network interface, a radio frequency transmitter/receiver, an infrared port, a USB connection, or other interfaces for connecting computing device  142  to other computing devices. Communication connection(s)  156  may include a wired connection or a wireless connection. Communication connection(s)  156  may transmit and/or receive communication media. 
         [0061]    The term “computer readable media” may include communication media. Communication media typically embodies computer readable instructions or other data in a “modulated data signal” such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism and includes any information delivery media. The term “modulated data signal” may include a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal. 
         [0062]    Device  142  may include input device(s)  154  such as keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, infrared cameras, video input devices, and/or any other input device. Output device(s)  152  such as one or more displays, speakers, printers, and/or any other output device may also be included in device  142 . Input device(s)  154  and output device(s)  152  may be connected to device  142  via a wired connection, wireless connection, or any combination thereof. In one embodiment, an input device or an output device from another computing device may be used as input device(s)  154  or output device(s)  152  for computing device  142 . 
         [0063]    Components of computing device  142  may be connected by various interconnects, such as a bus. Such interconnects may include a Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI), such as PCI Express, a Universal Serial Bus (USB), firewire (IEEE 1394), an optical bus structure, and the like. In another embodiment, components of computing device  142  may be interconnected by a network. For example, memory  148  may be comprised of multiple physical memory units located in different physical locations interconnected by a network. 
         [0064]    Those skilled in the art will realize that storage devices utilized to store computer readable instructions may be distributed across a network. For example, a computing device  160  accessible via network  158  may store computer readable instructions to implement one or more embodiments provided herein. Computing device  142  may access computing device  160  and download a part or all of the computer readable instructions for execution. Alternatively, computing device  142  may download pieces of the computer readable instructions, as needed, or some instructions may be executed at computing device  142  and some at computing device  160 . 
         [0065]    Various operations of embodiments are provided herein. In one embodiment, one or more of the operations described may constitute computer readable instructions stored on one or more computer readable media, which if executed by a computing device, will cause the computing device to perform the operations described. The order in which some or all of the operations are described should not be construed as to imply that these operations are necessarily order dependent. Alternative ordering will be appreciated by one skilled in the art having the benefit of this description. Further, it will be understood that not all operations are necessarily present in each embodiment provided herein. 
         [0066]    Moreover, the word “exemplary” is used herein to mean serving as an example, instance, or illustration. Any aspect or design described herein as “exemplary” is not necessarily to be construed as advantageous over other aspects or designs. Rather, use of the word exemplary is intended to present concepts in a concrete fashion. As used in this application, the term “or” is intended to mean an inclusive “or” rather than an exclusive “or”. That is, unless specified otherwise, or clear from context, “X employs A or B” is intended to mean any of the natural inclusive permutations. That is, if X employs A; X employs B; or X employs both A and B, then “X employs A or B” is satisfied under any of the foregoing instances. In addition, the articles “a” and “an” as used in this application and the appended claims may generally be construed to mean “one or more” unless specified otherwise or clear from context to be directed to a singular form. 
         [0067]    Also, although the disclosure has been shown and described with respect to one or more implementations, equivalent alterations and modifications will occur to others skilled in the art based upon a reading and understanding of this specification and the annexed drawings. The disclosure includes all such modifications and alterations and is limited only by the scope of the following claims. In particular regard to the various functions performed by the above described components (e.g., elements, resources, etc.), the terms used to describe such components are intended to correspond, unless otherwise indicated, to any component which performs the specified function of the described component (e.g., that is functionally equivalent), even though not structurally equivalent to the disclosed structure which performs the function in the herein illustrated exemplary implementations of the disclosure. In addition, while a particular feature of the disclosure may have been disclosed with respect to only one of several implementations, such feature may be combined with one or more other features of the other implementations as may be desired and advantageous for any given or particular application. Furthermore, to the extent that the terms “includes”, “having”, “has”, “with”, or variants thereof are used in either the detailed description or the claims, such terms are intended to be inclusive in a manner similar to the term “comprising.”