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

Re: Trust in statements (was BioRDF Brainstorming)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:05:43 -0500
Message-Id: <18FF72B3-8A78-48FA-9641-11B6074D80BB@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, holger.stenzhorn@deri.org, p.roe@qut.edu.au, j.hogan@qut.edu.au
To: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>

I'm personally fond of the symbolic approach - I think it is more  
direct and easier to explain what is meant. It's harder to align  
people to a numerical system, I would think, and also provides a  
false sense of precision. Explanations are easier to understand as  
well: "2 sources thought this probable, and 1 thought is doubtful"  
can be grokked more easily than score: 70%

-Alan

On Feb 12, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Matt Williams wrote:

>
> 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 Wednesday, 13 February 2008 04:20:14 GMT

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