W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-emotion@w3.org > August 2008

Re: [EMOXG] Confidence

From: Marc Schroeder <schroed@dfki.de>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:03:02 +0200
Message-ID: <489C35F6.7000809@dfki.de>
To: public-xg-emotion@w3.org

Ian, Bill, Andrew, all,

my impression is we are converging to the notion that

* for some purposes, a continuous scale will make sense, notably when a 
machine generates a value;

* for other purposes (human ratings), a discrete scale is better suited.

There have now been two suggestions how the discrete values should be done:
a) using pre-defined words;
b) allowing only certain values within the same range as for the 
numerical value.

Is this a fair summary? And: can the issue be generalised from 
confidence to other scale ratings (em. dimensions, appraisals, action 
tendencies, and intensity)?


My personal view on option (b) is that it seems not straightforward to 
define, say, a seven-point scale in this way. Using English words in the 
markup does not bother me, we do it in other parts of the spec as well, 
and in W3C markup languages throughout, it seems to me. So I would 
favour (a).


Best wishes,
Marc




Ian Wilson schrieb:
> Bill,
> 
> Very interesting context you set out there. Maybe I need to change my view?
> 
> I am fine with no confidence meaning "not known", then it can be left to 
> the developer how they interpret it (actually both ways can do that).
> 
> I dont like semantics (i.e. text) much at all but your explanation of 
> cyc highlights problems of numeric values.
> 
> To add some more context in support of numeric (although I am not 
> convinced myself now that it is the best solution):
> 
> a. Easily Machine readable
> b. MULTINATIONAL (if we state one default format it will no doubt be 
> english semantics, while this is generally universal it does bother me 
> somewhat. Imagine how we would all feel if the default set was Chinese? 
> Perhaps jianhua can assist here ;)
> c. more interoperable
> d. Unambiguous (except when they are biased, or relative or .... )
> 
> Perhaps we do need b oth options?
> 
> Ian
> 
> Ian Wilson
> CEO
> Emotion AI
> 
> w: www.emotionai.com
> e: ian@emotionai.com
> p: +44 (0) 704 040 3198
> 
> Bringing the power of emotional communication to your products
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed Aug 6 4:32 PM  , Bill Jarrold <jarrold@AI.SRI.COM> sent:
> 
>     Hi Ian,
> 
>     Thanks for the concise reply and apologies for my lengthy one just a
>     few minutes ago.
> 
>     Here (below) I give a succinct version of my previous email..
> 
>     On Aug 6, 2008, at 5:48 AM, Ian Wilson wrote:
> 
>         All,
> 
>         Points of agreement:
> 
>         The stated core set (2,3,4,5,7) should have confidence but I
>         dont think any of the others make sense to have confidence.
> 
>         It should be an attribute.
> 
>         It should be optional and set by default as 1 (Andys suggestion) 
> 
> 
>     As in my previous email, there are some problems with this.  Can we
>     just be agnostic about confidence if it is not set?
> 
> 
>         It should be a uni polar 0 to 1 value, not fuzzy text (Andys
>         suggestion) 
> 
> 
>     Agreed that text is fuzzy.  Having a fixed set of of ratings, say 5,
>     to choose from is less fuzzy.  
> 
>     Alas, human certainty of confidence is a fuzzy thing.  Thus a
>     numeric rating imposes an artificial sense of security.
> 
>     To be sure, allowing arbitrary text labels seems worse than uni
>     polar 0 to 1 value.  But having a fixed set e.g. "very low",
>     moderately low", "medium", "moderately high", "very high" is in some
>     ways better than 0 to 1.
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
>     Bill
> 
> 
> 
>         Points of divergence:
> 
>         The example for core 5 uses the attribute for the enclosing tag,
>         I am not sure if this makes sense, especially if the sub tags
>         are set as confidence = 1.0 by default.
> 
>         Best,
> 
>         Ian
> 
>         Ian Wilson
>         CEO
>         Emotion AI
> 
>         w: www.emotionai.com <http://www.emotionai.com>
>         e: ian@emotionai.com <mailto:ian@emotionai.com>
>         p: +44 (0) 704 040 3198
> 
>         Bringing the power of emotional communication to your products
> 
>         -------
>         Sent from Orgoo.com
>         <https://secure.orgoo.com/Signup?func=signup&referrer=1> - Your
>         communications cockpit!
> 
> 
> 
> -------
> Sent from Orgoo.com 
> <https://secure.orgoo.com/Signup?func=signup&referrer=1> - Your 
> communications cockpit!

-- 
Dr. Marc Schröder, Senior Researcher at DFKI GmbH
Coordinator EU FP7 Project SEMAINE http://www.semaine-project.eu
Chair W3C Emotion ML Incubator http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion
Portal Editor http://emotion-research.net
Team Leader DFKI Speech Group http://mary.dfki.de
Project Leader DFG project PAVOQUE http://mary.dfki.de/pavoque

Homepage: http://www.dfki.de/~schroed
Email: schroed@dfki.de
Phone: +49-681-302-5303
Postal address: DFKI GmbH, Campus D3_2, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123 
Saarbrücken, Germany
--
Official DFKI coordinates:
Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 07:12:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 August 2008 07:12:25 GMT