- From: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:03:53 +0000
- 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 UTC