[expertfinder-dev] Re: Expertise and Trust Vocabs

[Axel Polleres]

Re: my mail form 27/06 ....

I'd like to try to solicit again comments from your side on my
comment on the numeric-valued ratings of trust in hoonoh and the trust
ontology especially on 1)... I really don't think it is a good idea to 
"rate" trust, I'd rather say something like I trust somebody on 
something, but not I trust somebody with a degree of X...

comments?

axel

Axel Polleres wrote:
[...]
> 1) I would rather only go for "boolean" ratings at all.
>    You trust someone or not. Or maybe, if you want it more refined,
>    you trust someone on something. But it leaves too much ambiguity to
>    say I trust someone with a degree of X.
> 
>    In doubt, I would rather suggest to go for the simplest option.
> 
>    Ranks could rather be *derived* based on "how many" trust or based
>    on some other ranking function aggregating networks of trust... but
>    this is not an issue for a vocabulary but rather for algorithms on
>    top (ie. "enabling technologies" as we called it in previous
>    discussions)
> 
> 2) I'm unsure whether it is a good idea to superclass foaf:properties:
>      "foaf:knows might be a subproperty of trust:trust0"
>    people might have a different understanding, of what knows means.
>    I could know someone and this doesn't say anything about how much or
>    little I trust this person. If even, I would put it the other way
>    around, but also that sounds fishy. I could trust the dalai lama,
>    although I don't know him personally

[...]

>> I'm not sure if you've seen my draft Hoonoh ontology Andreas. It takes
>> a slightly different approach, but fulfils the same kind of role. For
>> example, using the ExpertiseRelationship class and associated
>> properties one can describe an expertise relationship between a
>> foaf:Person and a Topic (hoonoh:Topic, subclass of skos:Concept), and
>> assign this relationship a value.
> 
> 
> See above, I have the same concern with the numeric value here as above.
> I personally wouldn't "rank" my levels of trust". At max I would make 
> some comparative statements, e.g. I" I trust X more than Y" (which by 
> the way I wouldn't make public, though ;-) )
> 
>>  I hope that it's a relatively clean
>> bit of modelling, but would be pleased to get feedback.
> 
> 
> My feedback for a small starting vocab would be to keep it simple
> as simple as possible/necessary, as I said.
> 
>> What we're doing is generating metrics for these
>> ExpertiseRelationships (and ExperienceRelationships, and
>> ImpartialityRelationships) linking people to Topics, and two others
>> that link people to people (AffinityRelationship and
>> TrackRecordRelationship). By following this approach we can publish
>> one "opinion" (that generated by our algorithms) about someone's
>> expertise/experience/etc in a particular topic, but leave individual
>> applications to decide whether that person is trustworthy in a
>> particular context, and depending on the user needs (i.e. people's
>> thresholds for trustworthiness will defer).
>>
>>> URIs for various skills & tags can be provided by dbpedia
> 
> On the expertfinder wiki, we suggested that
>   ACM classifications or maybe also the subject areas at the WWW
>   Conferences Archive could be interesting. Also wikipedia terms (as 
> used above, were a suggestion which came up several times already).
> see
>  http://www.rdfweb.org/topic/ExpertFinder_2fBestPractices
> 
> If somoene wants to add/comment there, feel free!!!
> 
> BTW: As a concrete exercise: What would be a good uri for 
> Trust&Security? see the above example.
> 
>> Agreed. This is what we're planning, or at least topics that map to
>> dbpedia if possible.
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>> @tom, when do we start the website "Sparql query of the day"?
>>
>>
>> :D As soon as possible! Would contacting SWEO be a good strategy?
>> Uldis is a member of SWEO AFAIK and may be able to present the
>> proposal to that group. I imagine many of the members there would be
>> interested in the idea, and their contributions/backing would be very
>> helpful.
> 
> 
> not yet sure whether i understand the sparql of the day idea really, but 
> sounds like fun! :-)
> 
> 
> axel
> 
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/expertfinder-dev/2007-June/000209.html 
>>
>> [2] http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/tom/tmp/draft-hoonoh-ontology.rdf
>> [3] http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/tom/tmp/sample-hoonoh-instances.rdf
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel at polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/