W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2008

Trust in statements (was BioRDF Brainstorming)

From: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:03:53 +0000
Message-ID: <47B209B9.1020004@cancer.org.uk>
To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, holger.stenzhorn@deri.org, p.roe@qut.edu.au, j.hogan@qut.edu.au

Just a quick note that the 'trust' we place in an agent /could/ be 
described probabilistically, but could also be described logically. I'm 
assuming that the probabilities that the trust annotations are likely to 
subjective probabilities (as we're unlikely to have enough data to 
generate objective probabilities for the degree of trust).

If you ask people to annotate with probabilities, the next thing you 
might want to do is to define a set of common probabilities (10 - 90, in 
10% increments, for example).

The alternative is that one could annotate a source, or agent, with our 
degree of belief, chosen from some dictionary of options (probable, 
possible, doubtful, implausible, etc.).

Although there are some formal differences, the two approaches end up as 
something very similar. There is of course a great deal of work on 
managing conflicting annotations and levels of belief in the literature.

Matt

-- 
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 21:04:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:51 GMT