Claim, Numbers, Values, Intentions & Results

I agree with Daniel and Pat on the issue of numeracy.  I was also glad 
to hear Subu raise the importance of personal values during the CredWeb 
CG televideo conference today.

Nishanth's reference to argumentation theory prompted me to convert to 
StratML format the key components of argumentation as well as Toulmin's 
model, at https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#KCA

I believe Toulmin's emphasis on reality, morality (personal values), and 
standards is well-taken: https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/TMAwStyle.xml#values_

With respect to the key components, it seems to me this one is highly 
relevant:

    Objective 1.2: Goals
    <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/KCAwStyle.xml#_794250ea-7485-11ea-b2a8-98182f83ea00>
    - Make the goals of the participants explicit.

At scale, goals must be shared in an open, standard, machine-readable 
format and, eventually, AI will be applied to help human beings evaluate 
the results being produced against the values they cherish.

See StratML tool, app, and service requirements:

    Goal 9: Values Validation
    <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/SMLTASwStyle.xml#_15447c10-208f-11e6-a80e-7333871eb3cb>
    - Analyze and report to stakeholders the degrees to which the goals,
    objectives and results of interest to them are consistent with their
    own values and validate the avowed values of the organizations
    establishing those goals and objectives

    Goal 10: Results Auditing & Validation
    <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/SMLTASwStyle.xml#_15447dd2-208f-11e6-a80e-7333871eb3cb>
    - Analyze and report to stakeholders the degrees to which the
    results of interest to them are being accurately measured and
    reported by the organizations establishing the relevant goals and
    objectives

Inquiring minds will learn to waste far less attention on what is said 
and focus instead not only to what is done but also the results 
attendant thereto.

Owen

On 4/1/2020 8:30 PM, Patrick J Hayes wrote:
> +1
>
> Pat
>
>> On Apr 1, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:dschwabe@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sandro,
>> my concern with this approach is that the numbers don’t really have 
>> any meaning… How different/significant is a weight of 30 vs 40? 45? etc…
>>
>> Many years ago we published a paper in WWW 2004 
>> (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221023321_A_hybrid_approach_for_searching_in_the_semantic_web), 
>> in which we used some weights in a schema graph (T-Box in OWL terms, 
>> for those who know) to adjust search results in an instance graph 
>> (A-box), using a spread activation algorithm. We got some good 
>> results. In assigning weights to the schema graph, we first asked 
>> “experts” to try to assign weights to each relation in the schema 
>> according to what they thought would be the relation’s “relevance”. 
>> We also defined a computed measure based on measures of uniqueness 
>> (analogous to tf and ida for terms in classical IR) of each relation 
>> in the schema. The computed measures performed much better than human 
>> assigned weights. Notice that in this case we could define a baseline 
>> measure to compare with.
>>
>> Our conclusion was that humans are simply not capable of assigning 
>> such quantitate measures, simply because these numbers have no real 
>> meaning. The best they can be used for is defining some (partial) 
>> ordering of importance among relations, which can also be done 
>> without numbers. Also we don’t have any theoretical support for 
>> combining such numbers, they become simply mathematical formulae that 
>> are impossible to interpret.
>>
>> I have my doubts about applying a similar approach to phenomena such 
>> as trust and reputation, which are inherently subjective (and this 
>> brings also another set of issues as well).
>>
>> We can elaborate more during our meeting, if you think appropriate.
>>
>> Best
>> D
>> —
>>
>>
>> Daniel Schwabe                      Dept. de Informatica, PUC-Rio
>> Tel:+55-21-3527 1500 r. 4356        R. M. de S. Vicente, 225
>> Fax: +55-21-3527 1530               Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900, Brasil
>> http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~dschwabe
>>
>>> On 31 Mar 2020, at 14:55, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org 
>>> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I made a tool for playing with credibility networks. It's not done, 
>>> but it's already interesting: https://credweb.org/viewer/
>>>
>>> <jbckcjpbljpmkgdc.png>
>>>
>>> I'd love to feed it some real data. It would help if people (that 
>>> means you) would make some public credibility statements. I did some 
>>> here: Sandro - Contributions to Public Information 
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShiK_Pkd46foPbWCayfkUh3UV5Bhd5KHI5SKYoUIkiI/edit>.  
>>> Feel free to use that as a starting point, copying and editing. When 
>>> you've got even a couple statements, make it public and send me an 
>>> email so I can link to it. I think perhaps the most interesting part 
>>> of this is to dig into why people who are in general agreement might 
>>> disagree about the credibility of sources, and how folks should 
>>> respond when that happens.
>>>
>>> Meeting tomorrow at the usual time 1 April 2020 2pm ET 
>>> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CredWeb&iso=20200401T14&p1=43&ah=1>and 
>>> the usual place https://zoom.us/j/706868147 to talk more about this 
>>> stuff. Agenda 
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SAH4u21D16oGtP2CVKnxgd6h4gGcSyJxHsuGtolujpM/edit>.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>       -- Sandro
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2020 03:09:03 UTC