- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:05:43 -0500
- To: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
- 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
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 UTC