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

Re: Trust in statements (was BioRDF Brainstorming)

From: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:08:55 +0000
Message-ID: <47B35C67.2030506@cancer.org.uk>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Dear Alan,

Thank you for making my point much more clearly than I managed. I'm a 
little wary of probabilities in situations like the one you describe, as 
it always seems a little hard to pin down what is meant by them. At 
least with the symbolic approach, you can give a short paragraph saying 
what you mean.

I'll try and find a paper on the "p-modals" (possible, probable, etc.) 
and ways of combining them tomorrow and put a paragraph on the wiki.

Matt

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 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
>>
> 

-- 
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 21:09:25 GMT

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