Evaluation method, evaluation program, and information processing device

Abstract

To make it possible to accurately evaluate an object.SOLUTION: An information processing device 100 acquires first data 101 and second data 102. The information processing device 100 calculates a first rate 111 of the number of items contained in a first item group to the number of items contained in a third item group obtained by integrating the first item group and the second item group, and a second rate 112 of the number of items contained in the second item group on the basis of the first data 101 and the second data 102. The information processing device 100 calculates a request achievement degree 113 in a providing source of the first data 101 on the basis of the first data 101 and the second data 102. The information processing device 100 evaluates a conformity degree between the providing source of the acquired first data 101 and the providing source of the acquired second data 102 on the basis of the first rate 111, the second rate 112, and the request achievement degree 113.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to an evaluation method, an evaluation program, and an information processing device. [Background technology]

[0002] Conventionally, there has been a service that compares user data, including presence / absence information indicating whether a user has certain qualification data, with company data, including necessity information indicating whether a company requires certain qualification data, to evaluate the reliability or importance of the user to the company.

[0003] In a prior art, for example, the reliability of a provider candidate that meets a matching request is calculated based on performance evaluation points and customer evaluation points. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0004] [Patent Document 1] Patent Publication No. 2021-124955 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] However, with conventional technologies, it is difficult to accurately evaluate users. For example, users are evaluated based on only two patterns: whether or not the user has all of the multiple qualification data required by the company. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish between users who do not have all of the multiple qualification data and users who do not have only some of the qualification data, and to evaluate users in detail.

[0006] In one aspect, the present invention aims to enable accurate evaluation of a subject. [Means for solving the problem]

[0007] According to one embodiment, an evaluation method, an evaluation program, and an information processing device are proposed that acquire first data including existence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to each item included in a first group of items, and second data including requirement information indicating the requirement level of data corresponding to each item included in a second group of items, calculate a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items formed by integrating the first group of items and the second group of items, and a second ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in the third group of items, and calculate a requirement fulfillment level at the provider of the acquired first data based on whether the acquired first data includes existence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to each of the requirement information, and evaluate the compatibility between the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data based on the calculated first ratio, the calculated second ratio, and the calculated requirement fulfillment level. [Effects of the Invention]

[0008] According to one aspect, it becomes possible to evaluate a subject with high accuracy. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0009] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of an evaluation method according to an embodiment. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a compatibility evaluation system 200. As shown in FIG. [Figure 3] FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram showing a first example of use of the compatibility evaluation system 200. As shown in FIG. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing a second example of use of the compatibility evaluation system 200. In FIG. [Figure 5] FIG. 5 is a block diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the information processing device 100. As shown in FIG. [Figure 6] FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the contents stored in the provision list 600. As shown in FIG. [Figure 7] FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the contents stored in the request list 700. As shown in FIG. [Figure 8] FIG. 8 is a block diagram showing an example of the functional configuration of the information processing device 100. As shown in FIG. [Figure 9] FIG. 9 is a block diagram showing a specific example of the functional configuration of the compatibility evaluation system 200. As shown in FIG. [Figure 10] FIG. 10 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an example of a use case. [Figure 11] FIG. 11 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of calculating the request achievement degree, the request reliability, and the provision reliability. [Figure 12] FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram showing another example of calculating the request achievement degree, the request reliability, and the provision reliability. [Figure 13] FIG. 13 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of evaluating the reliability of a provider 212 from the perspective of a requester 211. [Figure 14] FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram (part 1) showing the second operation example of the information processing device 100. [Figure 15] FIG. 15 is an explanatory diagram (part 2) showing the second operation example of the information processing device 100. [Figure 16] FIG. 16 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the overall processing procedure. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0010] DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS Hereinafter, embodiments of an evaluation method, an evaluation program, and an information processing device according to the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0011] (One Example of Evaluation Method According to an Embodiment) 1 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of an evaluation method according to an embodiment. An information processing device 100 is a computer for evaluating an object. The information processing device 100 is, for example, a server or a PC (Personal Computer).

[0012] The target may be an individual or an organization. For example, the target may be an individual. The individual may be, for example, a job seeker. Conventionally, there are services that evaluate individuals based on the compatibility between the individual and a company. This service evaluates the compatibility between the individual and a company based on whether the individual has certain qualification data or the like and whether the company requires certain qualification data or the like, thereby evaluating the individual's reliability, importance, usefulness, etc. to the company.

[0013] Specifically, it is conceivable to evaluate the compatibility between an individual and a company by comparing personal data including presence / absence information indicating whether or not an individual has predetermined qualification data, etc., with company data including necessity information indicating whether or not the company requires predetermined qualification data, etc. The presence / absence information is, for example, binary information that quantifies whether or not information that contributes to trust, such as predetermined qualification data, is present. The necessity information is, for example, binary information that quantifies whether or not information that contributes to trust, such as predetermined qualification data, is required. For a specific example of quantification, see Reference 1 below.

[0014] Reference 1: Hidenobu Oguri, et al. “Proposal of a Trust Management Method Using Workflow-Based Digital Signatures.” Computer Security Symposium 2020 Proceedings (2020): 376-383.

[0015] However, in the past, it was difficult to accurately evaluate a target. For example, in the past, targets were evaluated based only on two patterns: whether or not an individual possessed all of the multiple qualification data required by a company. As a result, it was not possible to distinguish between an individual who did not possess all of the multiple qualification data and an individual who did not possess only some of the qualification data, and to accurately evaluate the individual's reliability or importance to the company. For example, unless the company's requirements, such as what it requires of individuals, are properly set in the company data, it is not possible to accurately evaluate the individual's reliability or importance to the company. In this case, it may be difficult to properly set the company's requirements, such as what it requires of individuals, in the company data.

[0016] For example, conventionally, necessity information is binary information that quantifies whether or not something is required, and does not take into account the gradual level of requirement. As a result, it is not possible to evaluate an individual's trustworthiness or importance to a company by taking into account qualification data that is not essential but is desirable for an individual. In response to this, it is possible to calculate how many qualification data a company requires an individual possesses, but no standard has been proposed for determining how to convert this calculated number into the individual's trustworthiness or importance to the company.

[0017] Therefore, in this embodiment, an evaluation method that enables a target to be evaluated with high accuracy will be described.

[0018] In FIG. 1, (1-1) the information processing device 100 acquires first data 101. The first data 101 includes presence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to each item included in a first group of items. The items are trusted items. In the example of FIG. 1, the first data 101 specifically includes presence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to each item included in a first group of items including item A, item B, item C, item D, item F, and item G. The presence information indicates, for example, the name of the item. The provider of the first data 101 is, for example, an individual.

[0019] (1-2) The information processing device 100 acquires second data 102. The second data 102 includes request information indicating the required level of data corresponding to each item included in the second group of items. The second group of items may be the same as the first group of items, may overlap with the first group of items, or may not overlap with the first group of items. The first group of items may include, for example, an item not included in the second group of items. In the example of FIG. 1, the second data 102 specifically includes request information indicating the required level of data corresponding to each item included in the second group of items, which includes item A, item B, item C, item D, and item E.

[0020] The requirement information indicates the name of an item in association with the requirement level of the data corresponding to the item. The requirement level corresponds to the importance of the data corresponding to the item to the provider of the second data 102. The requirement levels are, for example, essential, important 1, important 2, or normal, in descending order of the degree of requirement. The provider of the second data 102 is, for example, an organization.

[0021] (1-3) The information processing device 100 calculates a first ratio 111 of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by integrating the first group of items and the second group of items. The third group of items is an item group that includes items included in the first group of items and items included in the second group of items without overlapping. In the example of FIG. 1, the third group of items specifically includes item A, item B, item C, item D, item E, item F, and item G.

[0022] In the example of FIG. 1, the number of items included in the third group of items is specifically 7. In the example of FIG. 1, the information processing device 100 specifically calculates a first ratio 111 of 6 / 7, where 6 is the number of items included in the first group of items and 7 is the number of items included in the third group of items. This allows the information processing device 100 to acquire the first ratio 111 as an index related to the items in the first group of items that do not overlap with the items in the second group of items. Therefore, when evaluating the compatibility between the provider of the first data 101 and the provider of the second data 102, the information processing device 100 can take into account the items in the first group of items that do not overlap with the items in the second group of items.

[0023] (1-4) The information processing device 100 calculates a second ratio 112 of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by integrating the first group of items and the second group of items. In the example of FIG. 1 , the information processing device 100 specifically calculates the second ratio 112 as 5 / 7, where the number of items included in the second group of items is 5 to the number of items included in the third group of items is 7. This allows the information processing device 100 to acquire the second ratio 112 as an index related to items in the first group of items that do not overlap with items in the second group of items. Therefore, when evaluating the compatibility between the provider of the first data 101 and the provider of the second data 102, the information processing device 100 can take into account items in the first group of items that do not overlap with items in the second group of items.

[0024] (1-5) The information processing device 100 calculates the requirement fulfillment level 113 at the provider of the acquired first data 101. For example, the information processing device 100 refers to the requirement level indicated by each piece of requirement information included in the second data 102, and calculates the requirement fulfillment level 113 based on whether the first data 101 includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each piece of requirement information. For example, if the first data 101 does not include presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to any piece of requirement information indicating a required requirement level, the information processing device 100 calculates the requirement fulfillment level 113 as "0".

[0025] For example, if the first data 101 includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to all request information indicating a required request level, the information processing device 100 calculates the request achievement degree 113 by adding a "fixed value" greater than "0" to the request achievement degree 113. For example, if the first data 101 includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to request information indicating a request level other than required, the information processing device 100 calculates the request achievement degree 113 by adding a weight value according to the request level to the request achievement degree 113.

[0026] In the example of FIG. 1, the information processing device 100 specifically calculates the requirement achievement level 113=fixed value+Σ weight value. The Σ weight value is a weight value corresponding to the requirement level of importance 1 corresponding to item B. , and the weight value corresponding to the normal requirement level for item D. This allows the information processing device 100 to calculate the requirement achievement degree that reflects the difference in requirement level for each item included in the second item group. Therefore, the information processing device 100 can take into account the difference in requirement level for each item included in the second item group when evaluating the compatibility between the provider of the first data 101 and the provider of the second data 102.

[0027] (1-6) The information processing device 100 evaluates the compatibility between the provider of the acquired first data 101 and the provider of the acquired second data 102 based on the calculated first ratio 111, the calculated second ratio 112, and the calculated requirement achievement level 113. The compatibility indicates, for example, an evaluation of the provider of the first data 101 in response to a request from the provider of the second data 102, such as how much data corresponding to which item is requested.

[0028] The information processing device 100 determines whether, for example, the first ratio 111 × the requirement achievement level 113 is equal to or greater than the second ratio 112. If, for example, the first ratio 111 × the requirement achievement level 113 is equal to or greater than the second ratio 112, the information processing device 100 determines that the provider of the first data 101 and the provider of the second data 102 are compatible. If, for example, the first ratio 111 × the requirement achievement level 113 is not equal to or greater than the second ratio 112, the information processing device 100 determines that the provider of the first data 101 and the provider of the second data 102 are not compatible.

[0029] In the example of FIG. 1, specifically, since first ratio 111×requirement achievement level 113≧second ratio 112, the information processing device 100 determines that the provider of the first data 101 and the provider of the second data 102 are compatible. Here, unlike the example of FIG. 1, it is possible that the first data 101 includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each item included in a first item group including item A, item C, item D, item E, item F, and item G. In this case, specifically, since first ratio 111×requirement achievement level 113<second ratio 112, the information processing device 100 may determine that the provider of the first data 101 and the provider of the second data 102 are incompatible.

[0030] This allows the information processing device 100 to accurately evaluate the compatibility by taking into consideration the items in the first item group that do not overlap with the items in the second item group and the difference in the requirement level for each item in the second item group. Therefore, the information processing device 100 can accurately evaluate the provider of the first data 101 according to the request, such as the amount of data corresponding to each item, from the provider of the second data 102.

[0031] The information processing device 100 can consider other patterns besides the two patterns of whether the first data 101 includes all the existence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to each piece of request information. Therefore, the information processing device 100 can accurately evaluate the provider of the first data 101 according to the request, such as the amount of data corresponding to each item, that is requested from the provider of the second data 102.

[0032] For example, the information processing device 100 can set stepwise requirement levels for data corresponding to each item at the provider of the second data 102. This allows the information processing device 100 to distinguish between data corresponding to items that are essential for the provider of the first data 101 and data corresponding to items that are preferable for the provider of the first data 101 to have. Therefore, the information processing device 100 can accurately evaluate the provider of the first data 101 according to requests such as how much data corresponding to each item is required from the provider of the second data 102.

[0033] Furthermore, the information processing device 100 can, for example, make it easier for the provider of the second data 102 to reflect requests in the second data 102, thereby reducing the workload on the provider of the second data 102. The information processing device 100 can, for example, make it easier for the provider of the second data 102 to use the functions of its own device.

[0034] Here, the case where the requirement levels are essential, important 1, important 2, or normal in descending order of the degree of requirement has been described, but this is not limited to this. For example, the requirement levels may not include essential. For example, the requirement levels may not include normal. For example, the requirement levels may include important x (x≧3).

[0035] Here, the case where the information processing device 100 operates independently has been described, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, a plurality of computers may cooperate to realize the functions of the information processing device 100. Specifically, a computer that calculates the first ratio 111, a computer that calculates the second ratio 112, a computer that calculates the requirement achievement level 113, and a computer that evaluates the conformance status may cooperate. For example, the functions of the information processing device 100 may be implemented on a cloud.

[0036] (An example of the compatibility evaluation system 200) Next, an example of a compatibility evaluation system 200 to which the information processing device 100 shown in FIG. 1 is applied will be described with reference to FIG.

[0037] 2 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a compatibility evaluation system 200. In FIG. 2, the compatibility evaluation system 200 includes an information processing device 100, one or more requesting devices 201, and one or more providing devices 202.

[0038] In the compatibility evaluation system 200, the information processing device 100 and the requesting device 201 are connected via a wired or wireless network 210. The network 210 is, for example, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), the Internet, etc. In the compatibility evaluation system 200, the information processing device 100 and the providing device 202 are connected via the wired or wireless network 210.

[0039] The information processing device 100 is a computer that provides a compatibility evaluation service to a provider 212 and a requester 211. The provider 212 is, for example, a party that notifies the information processing device 100 of what data corresponding to what items that contribute to trust the provider 212 possesses. The provider 212 is, for example, an individual or an organization. The requester 211 is, for example, a party that notifies the information processing device 100 of what items that contribute to trust the provider 212 needs to provide, and to what extent the data is necessary. The requester 211 is, for example, an individual or an organization. The compatibility evaluation service evaluates the compatibility between the provider 212 and the requester 211, for example.

[0040] The information processing device 100 acquires a provision list. The provision list corresponds to, for example, the first data 101 shown in FIG. 1. The provision list includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each item included in the first group of items for the provider 212. The items are trust items. The first group of items is set, for example, by the provider 212. The presence information indicates, for example, the names of the items. The provision list indicates, for example, what items contributing to trust the provider 212 has data corresponding to. The information processing device 100 receives the provision list from, for example, the provider device 202. An example of the stored contents of the provision list will be described specifically later with reference to FIG. 6.

[0041] The information processing device 100 acquires a request list. The request list corresponds to, for example, the second data 102 shown in FIG. 1. The request list includes request information indicating the request level of data corresponding to each item included in the second group of items. The items are trust items. The second group of items may be, for example, the same as the first group of items, or may overlap with the first group of items, or may not overlap with the first group of items. The second group of items is set, for example, by the requester 211. The request information indicates the name of the item and the label of the request level of the data corresponding to the item in association with each other. The label indicates the name of the request level. The request list indicates, for example, what items contribute to trust and to what extent the requester 211 requests data corresponding to the item from the provider 212. The information processing device 100 receives the request list from, for example, the requesting device 201. An example of the stored contents of the request list will be described specifically later with reference to FIG. 7.

[0042] The information processing device 100 calculates the provision reliability, the request reliability, and the request achievement degree based on the provision list and the request list. The provision reliability corresponds to, for example, the ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by integrating the first group of items and the second group of items. The provision reliability is an index value related to the reliability of the provider 212, taking into consideration not only the existence of data corresponding to any item requested by the requester 211, but also the existence of data corresponding to any item not requested by the requester 211. The provision reliability corresponds to, for example, the first ratio 111 shown in FIG. 1.

[0043] The request reliability corresponds to, for example, the ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by combining the first group of items and the second group of items. The request reliability is a reference value related to the reliability of the provider 212, taking into consideration not only the existence of data corresponding to any item requested by the requester 211, but also the existence of data corresponding to any item not requested by the requester 211. The request reliability corresponds to, for example, the second ratio 112 shown in FIG. 1. The request achievement level is an evaluation value of the provider 212 according to the extent to which the provider 212 has data corresponding to each item requested by the requester 211, taking into consideration the request level.

[0044] The information processing device 100 evaluates the compatibility between the provider 212 and the requester 211 based on the provision reliability, request reliability, and request achievement level. If (provision reliability) x (request achievement level) ≥ (request reliability), the information processing device 100 evaluates that the provider 212 and the requester 211 are compatible, and the requester 211 has trust in the provider 212. On the other hand, if (provision reliability) x (request achievement level) < (request reliability), the information processing device 100 evaluates that the provider 212 and the requester 211 are not compatible, and the requester 211 does not trust the provider 212. The information processing device 100 transmits the result of evaluating the compatibility to the providing device 202 or the requesting device 201. The information processing device 100 is, for example, a server or a PC.

[0045] The providing device 202 is a computer used by the provider 212. The providing device 202 generates a provision list based on an operation input from the provider 212. The providing device 202 transmits the generated provision list to the information processing device 100. Upon receiving the result of evaluating the compatibility between the provider 212 and the requester 211 from the information processing device 100, the providing device 202 outputs the result of evaluating the compatibility between the provider 212 and the requester 211 so that the provider 212 can refer to it. The providing device 202 is, for example, a PC, a tablet terminal, or a smartphone.

[0046] The requesting device 201 is a computer used by the requester 211. The requesting device 201 generates a request list based on operational input from the requester 211. The requesting device 201 transmits the generated request list to the information processing device 100. Upon receiving the result of evaluating the compatibility between the requester 211 and the provider 212 from the information processing device 100, the requesting device 201 outputs the result of evaluating the compatibility between the requester 211 and the provider 212 so that the requester 211 can refer to it. The requesting device 201 is, for example, a PC, a tablet terminal, or a smartphone.

[0047] Here, the case where the information processing device 100 is a device different from the providing device 202 has been described, but this is not limiting. For example, the information processing device 100 may have the function of the providing device 202 and may also operate as the providing device 202.

[0048] Here, the case where the information processing device 100 is a device different from the requesting device 201 has been described, but this is not limiting. For example, the information processing device 100 may have the function of the requesting device 201 and may also operate as the requesting device 201.

[0049] Here, the case where the providing device 202 is a device different from the requesting device 201 has been described, but this is not limiting. For example, the providing device 202 may have the function of the requesting device 201 and operate as the requesting device 201.

[0050] (Example 1 of use of the compatibility evaluation system 200) Next, a first example of use of the compatibility evaluation system 200 shown in FIG. 2 will be described with reference to FIG.

[0051] FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram showing a first use example of the compatibility evaluation system 200. In FIG. 3, a requesting device 201 is used by a requester 211 who is an individual. A providing device 202 is used by a provider 212 who is a member of an organization. The organization is specifically a service provider that provides a predetermined service. The predetermined service is, for example, a genetic diagnosis service.

[0052] When using a genetic diagnostic service, the requester 211 needs to submit sensitive information such as his / her own physical information, genetic information, or medical history to the organization, and therefore may wish to evaluate whether the organization is trustworthy before using the genetic diagnostic service. Sensitive information is information that is preferably kept secret. Sensitive information is, for example, information related to privacy.

[0053] Therefore, the compatibility evaluation system 200 is expected to evaluate the compatibility between an individual and an organization and evaluate the trustworthiness of the organization from the individual's perspective. Here, it is assumed that the requester 211 wants to request that data corresponding to items such as "certification," "data leakage history," "data management," "user evaluation," and "security measures" exist for the organization.

[0054] "Certification" is, for example, an item indicating that the organization has been certified by a third-party organization. "Data leakage history" is, for example, an item indicating that the organization manages its data leakage history. "Data management" is, for example, an item indicating that data management is carried out in accordance with standards. "User evaluation" is, for example, an item indicating that the organization has received a certain level of high evaluation from past users. "Security measures" is, for example, an item indicating that the organization is implementing security measures.

[0055] Specifically, the requester 211 places the highest importance on the existence of data corresponding to the items "certification" and "data management," places a relatively high importance on the existence of data corresponding to the item "user evaluation," and desires that data corresponding to other items, if any, exist. The requester 211 uses the requesting device 201 to specify the importance of each item in accordance with the above desires, and generates a desire list {Certification: required, Data leakage history: normal, Data management: required, User evaluation: important, Security measures: normal} that reflects the above desires. The requesting device 201 transmits the generated desire list to the information processing device 100.

[0056] The provider 212 confirms, for example, that the organization has data corresponding to items such as "certification," "data leakage history," "data management," "corporate assets," "security measures," "capital ties," "business partners," and "specific purpose of use."

[0057] "Corporate assets" is, for example, an item indicating that an organization has corporate assets above a certain level. "Capital ties" is, for example, an item indicating that an organization has a non-illegal capital relationship. "Business partners" is, for example, an item indicating that an organization is doing business with a specific business partner. "Purpose of use" is, for example, an item indicating that an organization has disclosed the purpose of use of users' sensitive information.

[0058] The provider 212 generates a provision list {certification, data leakage history, data management, corporate assets, security measures, capital relationship, trading company, and purpose of use} based on the confirmation results using the providing device 202. The providing device 202 transmits the generated provision list to the information processing device 100.

[0059] The information processing device 100 evaluates the compatibility between the individual and the organization based on the request list and the provision list, and evaluates the trustworthiness of the organization from the individual's perspective. For example, when the information processing device 100 evaluates that the individual and the organization are compatible, it evaluates that the organization is trustworthy from the individual's perspective.

[0060] The information processing device 100 transmits the evaluation result to the requesting device 201. The requesting device 201 outputs the evaluation result so that it can be referenced by the requester 211. In this way, the compatibility evaluation system 200 enables the requester 211 to accurately evaluate whether or not a tissue is trustworthy before using the genetic diagnostic service.

[0061] (Example 2 of use of the compatibility evaluation system 200) Next, a second example of use of the compatibility evaluation system 200 shown in FIG. 2 will be described with reference to FIG.

[0062] FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing a second use example of the compatibility evaluation system 200. In FIG. 4, the requesting device 201 is used by a requester 211, which is an organization. The providing device 202 is used by a provider 212, which is an individual. The organization is, specifically, a company that is recruiting employees. The provider 212 is, specifically, a job seeker. When recruiting employees, the requester 211 may wish to evaluate the compatibility between the organization and the individual and evaluate the individual's suitability for employment.

[0063] Therefore, the compatibility assessment system 200 is expected to assess the compatibility between an individual and an organization and evaluate the employee suitability of the individual for the organization. Here, it is assumed that the requester 211 wants to request that data corresponding to items such as "address information," "health information," and "language information (English)" exist for the individual.

[0064] "Address information" is, for example, an item indicating that an individual has a resident registration. "Health information" is, for example, an item indicating that an individual has no health problems. "Language information (English)" is, for example, an item indicating that an individual has an English-related qualification.

[0065] Specifically, the requester 211 desires to attach the highest importance to the existence of data corresponding to the items "address information" and "health information," and to attach a relatively high importance to the existence of data corresponding to the item "language information (English)." The requester 211 uses the requesting device 201 to specify the importance of each item in accordance with the desire, and generates a request list {address information: required, health information: required, language information (English): important} that reflects the desire. The requesting device 201 transmits the generated request list to the information processing device 100.

[0066] The provider 212 confirms that it has data corresponding to items such as "address information," "health information," and "language information (German)," for example. "Language information (German)" is, for example, an item indicating that an individual has a qualification related to German. The provider 212 uses the providing device 202 to generate a provision list {address information, health information, language information (German)} based on the confirmation results. The providing device 202 transmits the generated provision list to the information processing device 100.

[0067] The information processing device 100 evaluates the compatibility between the individual and the organization based on the request list and the provided list, and evaluates the employee suitability of the individual for the organization. If the information processing device 100 evaluates that the individual and the organization are compatible, it evaluates that the individual is employee suitability for the organization.

[0068] The information processing device 100 transmits the evaluation result to the requesting device 201. The requesting device 201 outputs the evaluation result so that it can be referenced by the requester 211. In this way, the suitability evaluation system 200 enables the requester 211 to accurately evaluate whether an individual is suitable as an employee.

[0069] (Example of hardware configuration of information processing device 100) Next, an example of the hardware configuration of the information processing device 100 will be described with reference to FIG.

[0070] Fig. 5 is a block diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the information processing device 100. In Fig. 5, the information processing device 100 has a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 501, a memory 502, a network I / F (Interface) 503, a recording medium I / F 504, and a recording medium 505. Furthermore, each component is connected to each other by a bus 500.

[0071] Here, the CPU 501 is responsible for overall control of the information processing device 100. The memory 502 has, for example, a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), and a flash ROM. Specifically, for example, the flash ROM or ROM stores various programs, and the RAM is used as a work area for the CPU 501. The programs stored in the memory 502 are loaded into the CPU 501, causing the CPU 501 to execute coded processes. The memory 502 stores a provision list 600, which will be described later in FIG. 6, and a request list 700, which will be described later in FIG. 7.

[0072] The network I / F 503 is connected to the network 210 via a communication line, and is connected to other computers via the network 210. The network I / F 503 manages the internal interface with the network 210 and controls the input and output of data from other computers. The network I / F 503 is, for example, a modem or a LAN adapter.

[0073] The recording medium I / F 504 controls reading / writing of data from / to the recording medium 505 under the control of the CPU 501. The recording medium I / F 504 is, for example, a disk drive, a solid state drive (SSD), a universal serial bus (USB) port, etc. The recording medium 505 is a non-volatile memory that stores data written under the control of the recording medium I / F 504. The recording medium 505 is, for example, a disk, a semiconductor memory, a USB memory, etc. The recording medium 505 may be detachable from the information processing device 100.

[0074] In addition to the above-mentioned components, the information processing device 100 may also include, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a display, a printer, a scanner, a microphone, a speaker, etc. The information processing device 100 may also include a plurality of recording medium I / Fs 504 and recording media 505. The information processing device 100 may also not include the recording medium I / Fs 504 and recording media 505.

[0075] (Storage contents of provision list 600) Next, an example of the contents stored in the provision list 600 will be described with reference to Fig. 6. The provision list 600 is realized by, for example, a storage area such as the memory 502 or the recording medium 505 of the information processing device 100 shown in Fig. 5.

[0076] Fig. 6 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the contents stored in the provision list 600. As shown in Fig. 6, the provision list 600 has fields for an item ID, an attribute, a trust value, and a category. The provision list 600 stores provision information as a record 600-a by setting information in each field for each item. "a" is an arbitrary integer.

[0077] An item ID that identifies an item is set in the item ID field. An attribute of the item is set in the attribute field. A trust value of 1 is set in the trust value field, indicating that data corresponding to the item exists. A category to which the item belongs is set in the category field. The provision list 600 does not have to have a category field, for example.

[0078] (Storage contents of request list 700) Next, an example of the contents stored in the request list 700 will be described with reference to Fig. 7. The request list 700 is realized by a storage area such as the memory 502 or recording medium 505 of the information processing device 100 shown in Fig. 5, for example.

[0079] Fig. 7 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the contents stored in the request list 700. As shown in Fig. 7, the request list 700 has fields for item ID, attribute, trust value, importance, and category. The request list 700 stores request information as record 700-b by setting information in each field for each item. b is an arbitrary integer.

[0080] An item ID that identifies an item is set in the item ID field. An attribute of the item is set in the attribute field. A trust value field is set to a trust value of 1 indicating that data corresponding to the item is requested. A label corresponding to the importance indicating how strongly the data corresponding to the item is requested is set in the importance field. A category to which the item belongs is set in the category field. The request list 700 does not have to have a category field, for example.

[0081] (Example of hardware configuration of provider device 202) A specific example of the hardware configuration of the provider device 202 is similar to the example of the hardware configuration of the information processing device 100 shown in FIG. 5, and therefore a description thereof will be omitted.

[0082] (Example of hardware configuration of requesting device 201) A specific example of the hardware configuration of the requesting device 201 is similar to the example of the hardware configuration of the information processing device 100 shown in FIG. 5, and therefore a description thereof will be omitted.

[0083] (Example of functional configuration of information processing device 100) Next, an example of the functional configuration of the information processing device 100 will be described with reference to FIG.

[0084] 8 is a block diagram showing an example of the functional configuration of the information processing device 100. The information processing device 100 includes a storage unit 800, an acquisition unit 801, a first calculation unit 802, a second calculation unit 803, an evaluation unit 804, and an output unit 805.

[0085] The storage unit 800 is realized by, for example, a storage area such as the memory 502 or the recording medium 505 shown in Fig. 5. In the following, a case where the storage unit 800 is included in the information processing device 100 will be described, but this is not limiting. For example, the storage unit 800 may be included in a device different from the information processing device 100, and the stored contents of the storage unit 800 may be accessible from the information processing device 100.

[0086] The acquiring unit 801 to the output unit 805 function as an example of a control unit. Specifically, the acquiring unit 801 to the output unit 805 realize their functions by causing the CPU 501 to execute a program stored in a storage area such as the memory 502 or the recording medium 505 shown in Fig. 5, or by the network I / F 503. The processing results of each functional unit are stored in a storage area such as the memory 502 or the recording medium 505 shown in Fig. 5, for example.

[0087] The storage unit 800 stores various information that is referenced or updated in the processing of each functional unit. The storage unit 800 stores, for example, first data. The first data is, for example, data including existence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to each item included in the first group of items. The first data may be, for example, data including a category to which each item included in the first group of items belongs and existence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to the item. The first data corresponds, for example, to the provision list 600 shown in FIG. 6. The first data is acquired, for example, by the acquisition unit 801.

[0088] The storage unit 800 stores, for example, second data. The second data is, for example, data including request information indicating the required level of data corresponding to each item included in the second group of items. The second group of items may be, for example, the same as the first group of items, or may overlap with the first group of items, or may not overlap with the first group of items. The first group of items may include, for example, items not included in the second group of items. The second data may be, for example, data including a category to which each item included in the second group of items belongs and request information indicating the required level of data corresponding to the item. The second data corresponds, for example, to the request list 700 shown in FIG. 7.

[0089] The request information indicates, for example, one of two or more tiered request levels. The request level indicates how strongly the provider of the second data requests data corresponding to an item. In the following description, it is defined that the stronger the request for data corresponding to an item from the provider of the second data, the higher the request level. Specifically, the request information indicates a label corresponding to the request level. The labels are, for example, "essential," "important x," or "normal," in descending order of request level. x is a positive integer. The second data is acquired, for example, by the acquisition unit 801.

[0090] The acquisition unit 801 acquires various types of information used in processing by each functional unit. The acquisition unit 801 stores the acquired various types of information in the storage unit 800 or outputs it to each functional unit. The acquisition unit 801 may also output the various types of information stored in the storage unit 800 to each functional unit. The acquisition unit 801 acquires various types of information based on, for example, a user's operation input. The acquisition unit 801 may receive various types of information from, for example, a device different from the information processing device 100.

[0091] The acquiring unit 801 acquires, for example, first data. Specifically, the acquiring unit 801 acquires the first data by receiving it from the providing device 202. More specifically, the acquiring unit 801 receives a provision list from the providing device 202. Specifically, the acquiring unit 801 acquires the first data by accepting input of the first data based on an operation input by a user.

[0092] The acquiring unit 801 acquires, for example, second data. Specifically, the acquiring unit 801 acquires the second data by receiving it from the requesting device 201. More specifically, the acquiring unit 801 receives a request list from the requesting device 201. Specifically, the acquiring unit 801 acquires the second data by accepting input of the second data based on an operation input by a user.

[0093] The acquisition unit 801 may receive a start trigger to start processing by any of the functional units. The start trigger may be, for example, a predetermined operational input by a user. The start trigger may be, for example, reception of predetermined information from another computer. The start trigger may be, for example, output of predetermined information by any of the functional units. The acquisition unit 801 may receive, for example, acquisition of first data and second data as a start trigger to start processing by the first calculation unit 802, the second calculation unit 803, and the evaluation unit 804.

[0094] The first calculation unit 802 calculates a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by combining the first group of items and the second group of items. The first ratio can be, for example, an index value that takes into account items in the first group of items that are not included in the second group of items. The first ratio corresponds, for example, to the provision reliability described above. The third group of items is a group of items that includes all items included in the first group of items and all items included in the second group of items without overlapping or omission.

[0095] The first calculation unit 802, for example, identifies a third group of items that includes each item included in the first group of items and each item in the second group of items that does not overlap with the first group of items. The first calculation unit 802, for example, calculates a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in the identified third group of items. This allows the first calculation unit 802 to obtain an index value related to the reliability of the provider 212 that takes into account the existence of data corresponding to any items not requested by the requester 211, and makes the index value available for evaluation.

[0096] The first calculation unit 802 may calculate, for each category, a first ratio of the number of items in the first group of items that belong to that category to the number of items in the third group of items that belong to that category. This allows the first calculation unit 802 to obtain, for each category, an index value related to the reliability of the provider 212 that takes into consideration the presence of data corresponding to any item not requested by the requester 211, and makes the index value available for reference in evaluation.

[0097] The first calculation unit 802 calculates a second ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in the third group of items. The second ratio corresponds to, for example, the required reliability described above. The third group of items is a group of items that includes all items included in the first group of items and all items included in the second group of items without overlapping or omission.

[0098] The first calculation unit 802, for example, identifies a third group of items that includes each item included in the first group of items and each item in the second group of items that does not overlap with the first group of items. The first calculation unit 802, for example, calculates a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in the identified third group of items. This allows the first calculation unit 802 to obtain a reference value related to the reliability of the provider 212 that takes into account the existence of data corresponding to any items not requested by the requester 211, and makes the reference value available for evaluation.

[0099] The first calculation unit 802 may calculate, for each category, a second ratio of the number of items in the second group of items that belong to that category to the number of items in the third group of items that belong to that category. This allows the first calculation unit 802 to obtain, for each category, a reference value related to the reliability of the provider 212 that takes into consideration the existence of data corresponding to any item not requested by the requester 211, and makes the reference value available for evaluation.

[0100] The second calculation unit 803 calculates the degree of requirement fulfillment of the provider of the acquired first data. For example, the second calculation unit 803 refers to the requirement level indicated by each piece of requirement information included in the acquired second data, and calculates the degree of requirement fulfillment based on whether the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each piece of requirement information. In this way, the second calculation unit 803 can evaluate the provider of the first data based on the degree to which the first data provider has data corresponding to each item requested by the provider of the second data, taking the requirement level into consideration.

[0101] Here, it is conceivable that the second data includes, for example, a first group of request information each indicating the maximum request level among two or more request levels. In this case, the second calculation unit 803 sets the request achievement degree to 0, for example, if the acquired first data does not include presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to any of the request information included in the first group of request information. As a result, the second calculation unit 803 can perform control so that the evaluation of the compatibility between the first data provider and the second data provider is lowered if the first data provider does not have at least one piece of data corresponding to the request information indicating a required request level.

[0102] Here, the second data may include, for example, a second set of requirement information indicating the second or higher requirement level among two or more requirement levels. In this case, the second calculation unit 803 calculates the requirement achievement degree by adding a fixed value if the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each of the requirement information included in the first set of requirement information. As a result, the second calculation unit 803 can control the first data provider to evaluate the compatibility between the first data provider and the second data provider higher if the first data provider has data corresponding to all of the requirement information indicating the required requirement level.

[0103] Here, the second data may include, for example, a second request information group indicating the second or subsequent request levels among two or more request levels. In this case, the second calculation unit 803 calculates the request achievement degree by adding a weight value based on the request level indicated by the request information, depending on, for example, presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to any of the request information included in the second request information group among the acquired first data. As a result, the second calculation unit 803 can perform control such that the more data a first data provider has that corresponds to request information indicating a request level of important x or normal, the higher the evaluation of the compatibility between the first data provider and the second data provider.

[0104] The second calculation unit 803 calculates, for each category, the degree of requirement fulfillment for the acquired first data provider. For example, the second calculation unit 803 refers to the requirement level indicated by each piece of requirement information belonging to the category and calculates the degree of requirement fulfillment based on whether the first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each piece of requirement information. In this way, the second calculation unit 803 can evaluate the first data provider in accordance with the degree to which the first data provider has data corresponding to each item requested by the second data provider, taking into account the requirement level for each category.

[0105] The evaluation unit 804 evaluates the compatibility between the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data based on the calculated first ratio, the calculated second ratio, and the calculated requirement achievement level. The acquisition unit 801 determines, for example, whether the first ratio × requirement achievement level is equal to or greater than the second ratio.

[0106] The acquiring unit 801 evaluates that the first data provider and the second data provider are compatible if, for example, the first ratio × the requirement achievement level is equal to or greater than the second ratio. The acquiring unit 801 evaluates that the first data provider and the second data provider are incompatible if, for example, the first ratio × the requirement achievement level is less than the second ratio. This allows the evaluating unit 804 to accurately evaluate the compatibility between the first data provider and the second data provider.

[0107] The evaluation unit 804 evaluates the overall compatibility between the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data based on the calculated first ratio, the calculated second ratio, and the calculated requirement achievement level for each category. The evaluation unit 804 determines, for example, for each category, whether the first ratio × requirement achievement level is equal to or greater than the second ratio.

[0108] The acquiring unit 801 evaluates that the first data provider and the second data provider are compatible if, for example, the first ratio × the required achievement level is equal to or greater than the second ratio for each category. The acquiring unit 801 evaluates that the first data provider and the second data provider are incompatible if, for example, the first ratio × the required achievement level is less than the second ratio for any category. This allows the evaluating unit 804 to accurately evaluate the compatibility between the first data provider and the second data provider.

[0109] The output unit 805 outputs the processing result of at least one of the functional units. The output format is, for example, display on a display, printout to a printer, transmission to an external device via the network I / F 503, or storage in a storage area such as the memory 502 or the recording medium 505. In this way, the output unit 805 can notify the user of the processing result of at least one of the functional units, thereby improving the convenience of the information processing device 100.

[0110] The output unit 805 outputs, for example, the result of evaluating the compatibility between the first data provider and the second data provider. Specifically, the output unit 805 transmits the result of evaluating the compatibility between the first data provider and the second data provider to the requesting device 201. In this way, the output unit 805 can make the result of evaluating the compatibility between the first data provider and the second data provider available to the requester 211.

[0111] (Specific example of functional configuration of compatibility evaluation system 200) Next, a specific example of the functional configuration of the compatibility evaluation system 200 will be described with reference to FIG.

[0112] 9 is a block diagram showing a specific example of the functional configuration of the compatibility evaluation system 200. The requesting device 201 includes a management DB (DataBase) 901. The management DB 901 manages the names of items. Based on an operational input from the requester 211, the requesting device 201 generates a request list 902 that shows, in association with each other, the names of items specified by the requester 211 from among the names of items managed by the management DB 901, and the request levels of data corresponding to the items specified by the requester 211. The request list 902 shows, in association with each other, the names of items and the request levels of data corresponding to the items. The requesting device 201 transmits the generated request list 902 to the information processing device 100.

[0113] The provider device 202 includes a management DB 903 and a reference DB 904. The management DB 903 manages the names of items. The reference DB 904 indicates the reference for quantifying the trustworthy information 905. The trustworthy information 905 is information that makes it possible to determine whether or not data corresponding to an item exists. The trustworthy information 905 includes, for example, a score on a language test. The item indicates, for example, that the score on the language test is equal to or above a reference score. The data corresponding to the item indicates, for example, a score on the language test that is equal to or above a reference score. The quantification is, for example, a binary representation of whether or not the score on the language test is equal to or above a reference score.

[0114] The providing device 202 accepts input of information 905 that contributes to trust based on an operation input from the provider 212. The providing device 202 determines whether data corresponding to an item exists by referencing the reference DB 904 and quantifying the input information 905 that contributes to trust. Based on the determination result, the providing device 202 generates a provision list 906 that includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each of one or more items. The providing device 202 transmits the generated provision list 906 to the information processing device 100.

[0115] The information processing device 100 includes an input unit 910, a calculation unit 920, a comparison unit 930, and a determination unit 940. The input unit 910 includes a request list input unit 911 and a provision list input unit 912. The request list input unit 911 receives a request list 902 from the requesting device 201. The provision list input unit 912 receives a provision list 906 from the providing device 202. The input unit 910 transmits the request list 902 and the provision list 906 to the calculation unit 920 and the comparison unit 930.

[0116] The calculation unit 920 includes a reliability calculation unit 921 and a reliability correction unit 922. The reliability calculation unit 921 calculates the provision reliability based on the request list 902 and the provision list 906. The provision reliability is the ratio of the number of items in the provision list 906 to the total number of items in the request list 902 and the provision list 906. The reliability calculation unit 921 calculates the request reliability based on the request list 902 and the provision list 906. The reliability is the ratio of the number of items in the request list 902 to the total number of items in the request list 902 and the provision list 906.

[0117] The reliability calculation unit 921 transmits the calculated provision reliability to the reliability correction unit 922. The reliability calculation unit 921 transmits the calculated request reliability to the reliability comparison unit 932. The reliability correction unit 922 receives the provision reliability from the reliability calculation unit 921. The reliability correction unit 922 receives the request achievement degree from the list comparison unit 931. The reliability correction unit 922 multiplies the provision reliability by the request achievement degree to calculate a final reliability. The reliability correction unit 922 transmits the final reliability to the reliability comparison unit 932.

[0118] The comparison unit 930 includes a list comparison unit 931 and a reliability comparison unit 932. The list comparison unit 931 calculates the degree of request achievement based on the request list 902 and the provision list 906. The degree of request achievement is calculated based on the request level indicated by the request list 902 and whether or not the provision list 906 indicates the existence of data corresponding to the item indicated by the request list 902. The list comparison unit 931 transmits the degree of request achievement to the reliability correction unit 922.

[0119] The reliability comparison unit 932 compares the final reliability with the requested reliability. The reliability comparison unit 932 determines whether the final reliability is equal to or greater than the requested reliability. The reliability comparison unit 932 transmits the result of determining whether the final reliability is equal to or greater than the requested reliability to the reliability determination unit 941. The determination unit 940 includes a reliability determination unit 941. The reliability determination unit 941 determines whether the provider 212 is trustworthy with respect to the requester 211 based on the result of determining whether the final reliability is equal to or greater than the requested reliability. The reliability determination unit 941 outputs the determination result so that the requester 211 can refer to it.

[0120] (Operation example 1 of information processing device 100) Next, a first operational example of the information processing device 100 will be described with reference to Fig. 10 to Fig. 13. First, an example of a use case will be described with reference to Fig. 10, for example.

[0121] 10 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a use case. In FIG. 10, on the requesting side, a requesting device 201 receives, based on an operational input from a requester 211, a designation of an item group related to data that the requester 211 requests from a provider 212. The requesting device 201 receives, based on an operational input from the requester 211, a designation of a label for each item included in the item group. The requesting device 201 generates a request list that associates each item in the item group with the label of that item, and transmits the request list to the information processing device 100.

[0122] On the providing side, the providing device 202 accepts input of information that contributes to trust based on an operation input from the provider 212. The providing device 202 generates a providing list based on the result of quantifying the information that contributes to trust, and transmits it to the information processing device 100. The information processing device 100 receives a request list from the requesting device 201. The information processing device 100 receives the providing list from the providing device 202.

[0123] The information processing device 100 compares the request list with the provision list and calculates the degree of request fulfillment based on the item labels. The information processing device 100 calculates the provision reliability based on the request list and the provision list. The information processing device 100 calculates the request reliability based on the request list and the provision list. The information processing device 100 calculates the final reliability by correcting the provision reliability by multiplying the provision reliability by the request fulfillment degree. The information processing device 100 evaluates whether the requester 211 considers the provider 212 to be reliable by comparing the final reliability with the request reliability. The information processing device 100 outputs the evaluation result so that the requester 211 can refer to it.

[0124] As a result, the information processing device 100 allows the requester 211 and the provider 212 to specify items using the same criteria, thereby making it possible to compare the request list and the provision list and to evaluate whether the provider 212 is trustworthy from the requester 211's perspective. The information processing device 100 can accurately evaluate whether the provider 212 is trustworthy from the requester 211's perspective. For example, the information processing device 100 can use the label specified by the requester 211, so it can accurately evaluate whether the provider 212 is trustworthy from the requester 211's perspective. For example, the information processing device 100 can use the provision reliability and request reliability, so it can accurately evaluate whether the provider 212 is trustworthy from the requester 211's perspective by taking into account items not specified by the requester 211. Next, an example of how the information processing device 100 calculates the request achievement degree, request reliability, and provision reliability will be described with reference to FIG. 11 .

[0125] 11 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of calculating the requirement achievement level, requirement reliability, and provision reliability. FIG. 11 shows a case where the requirement list 1110 "TP" does not include any items labeled as non-essential. In this case, if the provision list 1100 "T" includes all items labeled as essential, the information processing device 100 sets the requirement achievement level to 1. On the other hand, if the provision list 1100 does not include any items labeled as essential, the information processing device 100 sets the requirement achievement level to 0.

[0126] Based on the request list 1110 and the provision list 1100, the information processing device 100 calculates the ratio TP of the number of items |TP| in the request list 1110 to the total number of items N=|T∪TP|. tmax Based on the request list 1110 and the provision list 1100, the information processing device 100 calculates the ratio T of the number of items |T| in the provision list 1100 to the total number of items N=|T∪TP|. tmax =(|T| / N)=0.8 is calculated as the provision reliability. Next, another example in which the information processing device 100 calculates the request achievement degree, the request reliability, and the provision reliability will be described with reference to FIG.

[0127] 12 is an explanatory diagram showing another example of calculating the request achievement degree, request reliability, and provision reliability. FIG. 12 shows a case where the request list 1210 "TP" includes items that have been assigned labels other than "essential." In this case, the information processing device 100 extracts one or more items that are also included in the provision list 1200 from the items in the request list 1210 that have been assigned labels other than "essential." The information processing device 100 assigns a weight value weight i =TPW i / (2 R ×TPW max ) is calculated.

[0128] R is the required label determination coefficient. R is 1 if the requirement list 1210 contains an item labeled required and the provision list 1100 "T" contains all items labeled required. R is 0 if the requirement list 1210 does not contain any items labeled required. R is treated as a value other than 0 or 1 if the requirement list 1210 contains an item labeled required and the provision list 1100 "T" does not contain any items labeled required.

[0129] TPW i is X / priority i X is a constant. i is a value corresponding to the requirement level indicated by the label of the i-th item. i For example, if the label is important x, then it is x, where x is a number between 1 and n. i For example, if the label is normal, then it is n+1. i is 1 to n+1. TPW max TPW i The total amount is:

[0130] If R∈{0, 1}, the information processing device 100 calculates the required achievement degree c=0.5R+Σ i ∈ TP weight i If R∈{0, 1} is not satisfied, the information processing device 100 sets the request achievement level c=0. Based on the request list 1210 and the provision list 1200, the information processing device 100 calculates the ratio TP of the number of items |TP| in the request list 1210 to the total number of items N=|T∪TP|. tmax Based on the request list 1210 and the provision list 1200, the information processing device 100 calculates the ratio T of the number of items |T| in the provision list 1200 to the total number of items N=|T∪TP|. tmax=(|T| / N)=0.8 is calculated as the provision reliability. Next, an example will be described with reference to FIG. 13 in which the information processing device 100 evaluates the reliability of the provider 212 from the requester 211 based on the request achievement degree, the request reliability, and the provision reliability.

[0131] 13 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of evaluating the reliability of a provider 212 from the perspective of a requester 211. In FIG. 13, the information processing device 100 acquires a request list 1301 and a provision list 1300, and calculates the request achievement degree c and the request reliability TP in the same manner as in FIG. tmax and the reliability of the provision T tmax It is possible to calculate the following.

[0132] In this case, the information processing device 100 calculates the final reliability tA (trustAchieve)=c×T taking into account the requirement achievement level c. tmax The information processing device 100 calculates the final reliability tA≧required reliability TP. tmax Here, the information processing device 100 determines whether the final reliability tA is equal to or greater than the required reliability TP. tmax If so, the requester 211 evaluates that the provider 212 is trustworthy. On the other hand, the information processing device 100 determines whether the final trustworthiness tA<the requested trustworthiness TP tmax In the example of FIG. 13, the information processing device 100 determines that c=0.5 and T tmax =0.8, TP tmax =0.6, it is determined that tA=0.5×0.8=0.4<0.6, and the requester 211 evaluates that the provider 212 is unreliable.

[0133] 12, the information processing device 100 acquires the request list 1302 and the provision list 1300, and calculates the request achievement degree c and the request reliability TP tmax and the reliability of the provision T tmax It is possible to calculate the following.

[0134] In this case, the information processing device 100 calculates the final reliability tA=c×T taking into account the requirement achievement level c. tmaxThe information processing device 100 calculates the final reliability tA≧required reliability TP. tmax Here, the information processing device 100 determines whether the final reliability tA is equal to or greater than the required reliability TP. tmax If so, the requester 211 evaluates that the provider 212 is trustworthy. On the other hand, the information processing device 100 determines whether the final trustworthiness tA<the requested trustworthiness TP tmax In the example of FIG. 13, the information processing device 100 determines that c=0.83 and T tmax =0.8, TP tmax =0.6, it is determined that tA=0.83×0.8≈0.66≧0.6, and the requester 211 evaluates that the provider 212 is trustworthy.

[0135] This allows the information processing device 100 to accurately evaluate whether the requester 211 considers the provider 212 to be reliable. As shown in Fig. 13, the information processing device 100 can accurately evaluate whether the requester 211 considers the provider 212 to be reliable, taking into account labels indicating tiered requirement levels designated by the requester 211. Specifically, the information processing device 100 can accurately evaluate whether the requester 211 considers the provider 212 to be reliable, depending on the difference between the labels in the requirement list 1301 and the requirement list 1302. The information processing device 100 can make it easier for the requester 211 to appropriately express his or her requests to the provider 212, as in the requirement lists 1301 and 1302, thereby improving convenience for the requester 211.

[0136] The information processing device 100 can use, for example, provision reliability and request reliability, and can accurately evaluate whether the provider 212 is reliable from the perspective of the requester 211, taking into account items not specified by the requester 211. Therefore, the information processing device 100 can accurately evaluate whether the provider 212 is reliable from the perspective of the requester 211, taking into account the reliability of the provider 212 as a whole.

[0137] From these, the information processing device 100 can evaluate whether the provider 212 satisfies the needs of the requester 211 to a certain extent and has high overall reliability. Therefore, the requester 211 can grasp providers 212 that meet his / her needs to a certain extent and providers 212 that completely meet his / her needs, as well as providers 212 that meet his / her needs to a certain extent and are judged to have high overall reliability.

[0138] (Operation example 2 of information processing device 100) Next, a second operation example of the information processing device 100 will be described with reference to FIGS.

[0139] 14 and 15 are explanatory diagrams showing a second operation example of the information processing device 100. In Fig. 14, the information processing device 100 acquires a provision list 1400 "T" including items of different categories and a request list 1410 "TP" including items of different categories.

[0140] The information processing device 100 extracts one or more items that are also included in the provision list 1400 from among the items that are assigned labels other than essential in the request list 1410. The information processing device 100 assigns a weight value weight i =TPW i / (2 R ×TPW max In the example of FIG. 14, since R∈{0, 1}, the information processing device 100 calculates the required achievement level c=0.5R+Σ i ∈ TP weight i =0.77.

[0141] Based on the request list 1410 and the provision list 1400, the information processing device 100 calculates the ratio TP of the number of items |TP| in the request list 1410 to the total number of items N=|T∪TP|. tmax Based on the request list 1410 and the provision list 1400, the information processing device 100 calculates the ratio T of the number of items |T| in the provision list 1400 to the total number of items N=|T∪TP|.tmax =(|T| / N)=0.66 is calculated as the reliability of provision.

[0142] The information processing device 100 calculates the final reliability tA=c×T taking into account the requirement achievement level c. tmax = 0.66 × 0.77 ≈ 0.45. The information processing device 100 calculates the final reliability tA ≧ the required reliability TP tmax 14, the information processing device 100 determines that tA=0.45≧0.44, and evaluates that the provider 212 is reliable for the requester 211 as a whole without taking the category into consideration. Next, moving on to the explanation of FIG. 15, a case will be described in which the information processing device 100 evaluates the reliability of the provider 212 for the requester 211 taking the category into consideration.

[0143] 15, the information processing device 100 extracts and classifies, for each category, one or more items that are also included in the provision list 1400 from among the items that are assigned labels other than essential in the request list 1410. The categories are, for example, management and medical care.

[0144] For example, the information processing device 100 extracts one or more items that are also included in the section 1501 related to the category [Management] of the provision list 1400 from among the items that have been assigned a label other than "essential" in the section 1511 related to the category [Management] of the request list 1410. For example, the information processing device 100 extracts one or more items that are also included in the section 1502 related to the category [Management] of the provision list 1400 from among the items that have been assigned a label other than "essential" in the section 1512 related to the category [Medical] of the request list 1410.

[0145] For each category, the information processing device 100 assigns a weight value weight to the i-th item classified into the category. i[j] =TPW i[j] / (2 R[j] ×TPW max[j] ) is calculated, where j is a category. In the example of FIG. 15, j is management and medical care.

[0146] The information processing device 100 calculates the required achievement level c for each category. [j] The information processing device 100 calculates R [ management ] =1∈{0,1}, so the required achievement level c [ management ] =0.5R [ management ] +Σ i ∈ TP weight i[ management ] =0.5. The information processing device 100 calculates R [ medical care ] =0∈{0,1}, so the required achievement level c [ medical care ] =0.5R [ medical care ] +Σ i ∈ TP weight i[ medical care ] =0.33.

[0147] The information processing device 100 calculates the total number of items N for each category based on the request list 1410 and the provision list 1400. [j] =|T [j] ∪TP [j] In the example of FIG. 15, the information processing device 100 calculates the total number of items N based on the part 1511 related to the category [management] in the request list 1410 and the part 1501 related to the category [management] in the provision list 1400. [ management ] The information processing device 100 calculates the total number of items N based on the part 1512 related to the category [medical] in the request list 1410 and the part 1502 related to the category [medical] in the provision list 1400. [ medical care ] Calculate =3.

[0148] The information processing device 100 determines the total number of items N for each category based on the request list 1410. [j] Number of items in the request list 1410 for |TP [j] |Percentage of TP tmax[j] =(|TP [j] | / N[j] ) as the required reliability. In the example of FIG. 15, the information processing device 100 calculates the total number of items N [ management ] Number of items in the section 1511 of the request list 1410 related to the category [Management] | TP [ management ] |Percentage of TP tmax[ management ] =0.33. The information processing device 100 calculates the total number of items N [ medical care ] The number of items in the section 1511 of the request list 1410 related to the category [Medical] | TP [ medical care ] |Percentage of TP tmax[ medical care ] =0.67.

[0149] The information processing device 100 calculates the total number of items N for each category based on the provision list 1400. [j] Number of items in the provided list of 1400 | T [j] |Percentage T tmax[j] =(|T [j] | / N [j] ) as the provision reliability. In the example of FIG. 15, the information processing device 100 calculates the total number of items N [ management ] The number of items in the section 1501 related to the category [Management] in the provision list 1400 | T [ management ] |Percentage T tmax[ management ] =0.83. The information processing device 100 calculates the total number of items N [ medical care ] The number of items in the category [Medical] part 1501 of the provision list 1400 for |T [ medical care ] |Percentage T tmax[ medical care ] =0.33.

[0150] The information processing device 100 calculates the required achievement level c for each category. [j] The final reliability tA taking into account [j] =c[j] ×T tmax[j] In the example of FIG. 15, the information processing device 100 calculates the final reliability tA [ management ] = 0.5 × 0.83 = 0.42. [ medical care ] = 0.33 × 0.67 ≒ 0.22.

[0151] The information processing device 100 calculates the final reliability tA [j] ≧ Required reliability TP tmax[j] In the example of FIG. 15, the information processing device 100 determines whether tA [ management ] =0.42≧0.33, and evaluates that the provider 212 is reliable for the category [management] from the perspective of the requester 211. [ medical care ] ≈0.22<0.33, and the requester 211 evaluates the provider 212 as unreliable for the category [medical care].

[0152] The information processing device 100 outputs the results of the evaluation of whether the provider 212 is trustworthy from the requester 211's perspective as a whole and the results of the evaluation of whether the provider 212 is trustworthy from the requester 211's perspective for each category so that the requester 211 can refer to them. This allows the information processing device 100 to accurately evaluate whether the provider 212 is trustworthy from the requester 211's perspective as a whole. The information processing device 100 can accurately evaluate whether the provider 212 is trustworthy from the requester 211's perspective for each category.

[0153] The information processing device 100 can accurately evaluate whether the requester 211 considers the reliability of the provider 212, for example, by taking into account labels indicating tiered levels of requirement specified by the requester 211. The information processing device 100 can use, for example, provision reliability and request reliability, and can accurately evaluate whether the requester 211 considers the reliability of the provider 212 by taking into account items not specified by the requester 211. As shown in FIG. 15 , the information processing device 100 can make the requester 211 refer to the results of the evaluation of whether the requester 211 considers the reliability of the provider 212 for each category. Thus, the information processing device 100 can make the requester 211 understand the reliability of the provider 212 in detail.

[0154] (Overall processing procedure) Next, an example of an overall processing procedure executed by the information processing device 100 will be described with reference to Fig. 16. The overall processing is realized by, for example, the CPU 501, storage areas such as the memory 502 and the recording medium 505, and the network I / F 503 shown in Fig. 5.

[0155] 16 is a flowchart showing an example of the overall processing procedure, in which the information processing device 100 acquires a provided element list and a requested element list (step S1601).

[0156] Next, the information processing device 100 identifies the labels assigned to each requirement element based on the requirement element list (step S1602), and then determines whether or not any of the identified labels indicates a requirement level other than "essential" (step S1603).

[0157] If there is no label indicating a requirement level other than the required level (step S1603: No), the information processing device 100 proceeds to the process of step S1604. On the other hand, if there is a label indicating a requirement level other than the required level (step S1603: Yes), the information processing device 100 proceeds to the process of step S1607.

[0158] In step S1604, the information processing apparatus 100 determines whether or not all the provision elements corresponding to the requirement elements to which the labels indicating the required requirement level are assigned are present in the provision element list (step S1604).

[0159] If all provision elements corresponding to the request elements to which labels indicating a required request level are assigned exist (step S1604: Yes), the information processing device 100 proceeds to the processing of step S1605. On the other hand, if any provision element corresponding to the request elements to which labels indicating a required request level are assigned does not exist (step S1604: No), the information processing device 100 proceeds to the processing of step S1606.

[0160] In step S1605, the information processing apparatus 100 sets the required achievement level c=1.0 (step S1605), and then the information processing apparatus 100 proceeds to the process of step S1608.

[0161] In step S1606, the information processing apparatus 100 sets the requirement achievement level c=0.0 (step S1606), and then the information processing apparatus 100 proceeds to the process of step S1608.

[0162] In step S1607, the information processing apparatus 100 calculates the requirement achievement level c based on the provided element list and the required element list (step S1607), and then the information processing apparatus 100 proceeds to the process of step S1608.

[0163] In step S1608, the information processing device 100 calculates the provision reliability T tmax and required reliability TP tmax (step S1608). Then, the information processing device 100 calculates c×T tmax ≧TP tmax It is determined whether or not this is the case (step S1609).

[0164] where c×T tmax ≧TP tmaxIf c×T tmax ≧TP tmax If not (step S1609: No), the information processing apparatus 100 proceeds to the process of step S1611.

[0165] In step S1610, the information processing device 100 evaluates the provider of the provided element list as trusted (step S1610), and then the information processing device 100 proceeds to the process of step S1612.

[0166] In step S1611, the information processing apparatus 100 evaluates the provider of the provided element list as untrusted (step S1611), and then the information processing apparatus 100 proceeds to the process of step S1612.

[0167] In step S1612, the information processing device 100 outputs the evaluation result (step S1612). Then, the information processing device 100 ends the entire process. This allows the information processing device 100 to accurately evaluate whether or not the provider of the provided element list is trustworthy.

[0168] As described above, the information processing device 100 can acquire first data including presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each item included in a first group of items. The information processing device 100 can acquire second data including request information indicating the request level of data corresponding to each item included in a second group of items. The information processing device 100 can calculate a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by integrating the first and second groups of items. The information processing device 100 can calculate a second ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in the third group of items obtained by integrating the first and second groups of items. The information processing device 100 can calculate the request fulfillment level of the provider of the acquired first data based on whether the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each piece of request information, with reference to the request level. According to the information processing device 100, it is possible to evaluate the compatibility between the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data based on the calculated first ratio, the calculated second ratio, and the calculated degree of requirement achievement. This allows the information processing device 100 to accurately evaluate the compatibility between the provider of the first data and the provider of the second data. The information processing device 100 can evaluate the compatibility between the provider of the first data and the provider of the second data, for example, by taking into account items that are included in the first item group but not in the second item group. The information processing device 100 can evaluate the compatibility between the provider of the first data and the provider of the second data, for example, by taking into account the requirement level.

[0169] The information processing device 100 can be applied to a case where the second data includes a first request information group indicating the highest request level among two or more request levels. The information processing device 100 can calculate a request achievement level by adding a fixed value if the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each request information included in the first request information group. The information processing device 100 can set the request achievement level to 0 if the acquired first data does not include presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to any request information included in the first request information group. This makes it easier for the information processing device 100 to determine that the provider of the first data and the provider of the second data are incompatible if the provider of the first data does not include data for an item with the highest request level. The information processing device 100 can, for example, treat the presence of data for an item with the highest request level as essential.

[0170] The information processing device 100 can be applied to a case where the second data includes a second request information group indicating the second or higher request level among two or more request levels. The information processing device 100 can calculate a request achievement level by adding a weight based on the request level indicated by the request information in accordance with presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to any of the request information included in the second request information group among the acquired first data. This allows the information processing device 100 to accurately evaluate the compatibility between the provider of the first data and the provider of the second data, taking into account the difference in tiered request levels.

[0171] The information processing device 100 can acquire first data including categories to which each item included in a first group of items belongs and presence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to the items. The information processing device 100 can acquire second data including categories to which each item included in a second group of items belongs and request information indicating the request level of data corresponding to the items. The information processing device 100 can calculate, for each category, a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items belonging to the category to the number of items included in the third group of items belonging to the category. The information processing device 100 can calculate, for each category, a second ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items belonging to the category to the number of items included in the third group of items belonging to the category. The information processing device 100 can calculate, for each category, the request fulfillment level for the category at the first data provider based on whether the first data includes presence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to the request information, by referring to the request level. This allows the information processing device 100 to accurately evaluate the compatibility between the first data provider and the second data provider, taking the category into consideration.

[0172] According to the information processing device 100, if the result of multiplying the calculated first ratio by the calculated request achievement level is equal to or greater than the calculated second ratio, it can be evaluated that the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data are compatible. According to the information processing device 100, if the result of multiplying the calculated first ratio by the calculated request achievement level is less than the calculated second ratio, it can be evaluated that the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data are not compatible. In this way, the information processing device 100 can determine whether the provider of the first data and the provider of the second data are compatible.

[0173] The evaluation method described in this embodiment can be realized by executing a prepared program on a computer such as a PC or a workstation. The evaluation program described in this embodiment is recorded on a computer-readable recording medium and executed by being read from the recording medium by the computer. The recording medium may be a hard disk, a flexible disk, a CD (Compact Disc)-ROM, an MO (Magneto Optical disc), a DVD (Digital Versatile Disc), or the like. The evaluation program described in this embodiment may also be distributed via a network such as the Internet.

[0174] The following additional notes are provided regarding the above-described embodiment.

[0175] (Supplementary Note 1) Acquire first data including presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each item included in a first group of items, and second data including requirement information indicating the requirement level of data corresponding to each item included in a second group of items, Calculating a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by integrating the first group of items and the second group of items, and a second ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in the third group of items; calculating a degree of requirement achievement at a provider of the acquired first data based on whether or not the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each of the request information, with reference to a requirement level indicated by each of the request information included in the acquired second data; evaluating a compatibility between the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data based on the calculated first ratio, the calculated second ratio, and the calculated degree of requirement achievement; An evaluation method characterized in that the processing is performed by a computer.

[0176] (Supplementary Note 2) The requirement information indicates one of two or more requirement levels, the second data includes a first request information group indicating a maximum request level among the two or more request levels, The process of calculating the required achievement level includes: The evaluation method described in Appendix 1, characterized in that if the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each of the request information included in the first request information group, the request achievement degree is calculated by adding a fixed value, and if the acquired first data does not include presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to any of the request information included in the first request information group, the request achievement degree is set to 0.

[0177] (Supplementary Note 3) The second data includes a second request information group indicating a second or subsequent request level among the two or more request levels, The process of calculating the required achievement level includes: The evaluation method described in Appendix 2, characterized in that the degree of requirement achievement is calculated by adding a weight value based on the requirement level indicated by the requirement information in accordance with presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to any of the requirement information included in the second requirement information group among the acquired first data.

[0178] (Appendix 4) The acquisition process is acquire first data including a category to which each item included in a first group of items belongs and presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to the item, and second data including requirement information indicating the category to which each item included in a second group of items belongs and the requirement level of data corresponding to the item; The process of calculating the first ratio and the second ratio includes: For each category, calculate a first ratio of the number of items belonging to the category included in the first group of items to the number of items belonging to the category included in a third group of items formed by combining the first group of items and the second group of items, and a second ratio of the number of items belonging to the category included in the second group of items to the number of items belonging to the category included in the third group of items, The process of calculating the required achievement level includes: An evaluation method described in any one of Appendices 1 to 3, characterized in that for each category, the requirement fulfillment level for that category at the provider of the acquired first data is calculated based on whether or not the acquired first data includes existence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to each of the requirement information, by referring to the requirement level indicated by each of the requirement information belonging to that category contained in the acquired second data.

[0179] (Appendix 5) The evaluation process is The evaluation method according to any one of appendices 1 to 3, characterized in that if the result of multiplying the calculated first ratio by the calculated degree of requirement fulfillment is equal to or greater than the calculated second ratio, the source of the acquired first data and the source of the acquired second data are evaluated as compatible, and if the result of multiplying the calculated first ratio by the calculated degree of requirement fulfillment is less than the calculated second ratio, the source of the acquired first data and the source of the acquired second data are evaluated as incompatible.

[0180] (Supplementary Note 6) The first group of items includes an item that is not included in the second group of items, The evaluation method described in any one of Appendices 1 to 3, characterized in that the first ratio is an index value that takes into account items from the first group of items that are not included in the second group of items.

[0181] (Supplementary Note 7) Acquire first data including presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each item included in a first group of items, and second data including requirement information indicating the requirement level of data corresponding to each item included in a second group of items; Calculating a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by integrating the first group of items and the second group of items, and a second ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in the third group of items; calculating a degree of requirement achievement at a provider of the acquired first data based on whether or not the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each of the request information, with reference to a requirement level indicated by each of the request information included in the acquired second data; evaluating a compatibility between the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data based on the calculated first ratio, the calculated second ratio, and the calculated degree of requirement achievement; An evaluation program that causes a computer to execute a process.

[0182] (Supplementary Note 8) Acquire first data including presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each item included in a first group of items, and second data including requirement information indicating the requirement level of data corresponding to each item included in a second group of items; Calculating a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by integrating the first group of items and the second group of items, and a second ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in the third group of items; calculating a degree of requirement achievement at a provider of the acquired first data based on whether or not the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each of the request information, with reference to a requirement level indicated by each of the request information included in the acquired second data; evaluating a compatibility between the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data based on the calculated first ratio, the calculated second ratio, and the calculated degree of requirement achievement; An information processing device comprising a control unit. [Explanation of symbols]

[0183] 100 Information processing device 101 First Data 102 Second Data 111 First Ratio 112 Second Ratio 113 Requirement achievement level 200 Compliance Assessment System 201 Requesting device 202 Provider device 210 Network 211 Requester 212 Provider 500 Bus 501 CPU 502 memory 503 Network I / F 504 Recording Media I / F 505 Recording Media 600,906,1100,1200,1300,1400 Offering list 700,902,1110,1210,1301,1302,1410 Request List 800 Storage section 801 Acquisition Department 802 First Calculation Unit 803 Second Calculation Unit 804 Evaluation Department 805 Output Section 901,903 Management DB 904 Standard DB 905 Information 910 Input section 911 Request List Input Section 912 Provision list input section 920 Calculation Department 921 Reliability calculation unit 922 Reliability Correction Unit 930 Comparison Section 931 List Comparison Section 932 Reliability Comparison Section 940 Judgment Department 941 Reliability Judgment Department

Claims

1. Acquire first data including presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each item included in the first group of items, and second data including requirement information indicating the requirement level of data corresponding to each item included in the second group of items; calculating a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by combining the first group of items and the second group of items, and a second ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in the third group of items; calculating a degree of requirement achievement at a provider of the acquired first data based on whether or not the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each of the request information, with reference to a requirement level indicated by each of the request information included in the acquired second data; evaluating a matching state between the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data based on the calculated first ratio, the calculated second ratio, and the calculated degree of requirement achievement; An evaluation method characterized in that the processing is performed by a computer.

2. the requirement information indicates one of two or more stepwise requirement levels, the second data includes a first request information group each indicating a maximum request level among the two or more request levels, The process of calculating the required achievement level includes: The evaluation method described in claim 1, characterized in that if the acquired first data includes existence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to each of the request information included in the first request information group, the request achievement degree is calculated by adding a fixed value, and if the acquired first data does not include existence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to any of the request information included in the first request information group, the request achievement degree is set to 0.

3. the second data includes a second request information group indicating a second or subsequent request level among the two or more request levels, The process of calculating the required achievement level includes: The evaluation method according to claim 2, characterized in that the degree of requirement achievement is calculated by adding a weight value based on the requirement level indicated by the requirement information in accordance with presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to any of the requirement information included in the second requirement information group among the acquired first data.

4. The acquiring process includes: acquire first data including a category to which each item included in a first group of items belongs and presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to the item, and second data including requirement information indicating the category to which each item included in a second group of items belongs and the requirement level for data corresponding to the item; The process of calculating the first ratio and the second ratio includes: For each category, calculate a first ratio of the number of items belonging to the category included in the first group of items to the number of items belonging to the category included in a third group of items formed by combining the first group of items and the second group of items, and a second ratio of the number of items belonging to the category included in the second group of items to the number of items belonging to the category included in the third group of items; The process of calculating the required achievement level includes: The evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that for each category, the method refers to the requirement level indicated by each piece of requirement information belonging to that category contained in the acquired second data, and calculates the degree of requirement fulfillment for that category at the provider of the acquired first data based on whether or not the acquired first data includes existence information indicating the existence of data corresponding to each piece of requirement information.

5. the first group of items includes an item that is not included in the second group of items; The evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that the first ratio is an index value that takes into account items from the first group of items that are not included in the second group of items.

6. Acquire first data including presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each item included in the first group of items, and second data including requirement information indicating the requirement level of data corresponding to each item included in the second group of items; calculating a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by combining the first group of items and the second group of items, and a second ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in the third group of items; calculating a degree of requirement achievement at a provider of the acquired first data based on whether or not the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each of the request information, with reference to a requirement level indicated by each of the request information included in the acquired second data; evaluating a matching state between the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data based on the calculated first ratio, the calculated second ratio, and the calculated degree of requirement achievement; An evaluation program that causes a computer to execute a process.

7. Acquire first data including presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each item included in the first group of items, and second data including requirement information indicating the requirement level of data corresponding to each item included in the second group of items; calculating a first ratio of the number of items included in the first group of items to the number of items included in a third group of items obtained by combining the first group of items and the second group of items, and a second ratio of the number of items included in the second group of items to the number of items included in the third group of items; calculating a degree of requirement achievement at a provider of the acquired first data based on whether or not the acquired first data includes presence information indicating the presence of data corresponding to each of the request information, with reference to a requirement level indicated by each of the request information included in the acquired second data; evaluating a matching state between the provider of the acquired first data and the provider of the acquired second data based on the calculated first ratio, the calculated second ratio, and the calculated degree of requirement achievement; An information processing device comprising a control unit.

Images