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
