Towards an Ontology of Trust for Situational Understanding

  • Owain Carpanini
  • Federico CeruttiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 650)


In this paper we propose a computational methodology for assessing the impact of trust associated to sources of information in situational understanding activities—i.e. relating relevant information and form logical conclusions, as well as identifying gaps in information in order to answer a given query. Often trust in the source of information serves as a proxy for evaluating the quality of the information itself, especially in the cases of information overhead. We show how our computational methodology support human analysts in situational understanding by drawing conclusions from defaults, as well as highlighting issues that demand further investigation.


Computational models of trust Situational understanding Uncertainty 


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Nutt, W.: Basic description logics. In: The Description Logic Handbook, pp. 43–95. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Constructing argument graphs with deductive arguments: a tutorial. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 5–30 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blei, D.M., Ng, A.Y., Jordan, M.I.: Latent Dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 993–1022 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chesnevar, C.I., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G.R., South, M., Vreeswijk, G.A.W., Willmot, S.: Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(04), 293 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Prade, H., Perny, P.: Qualitative decision theory: from savage’s axioms to nonmonotonic reasoning. J. ACM 49(4), 455–495 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H., Rico, A.: Residuated variants of Sugeno integrals: towards new weighting schemes for qualitative aggregation methods. Inf. Sci. 329, 765–781 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartig, O., Zhao, J.: Using web data provenance for quality assessment. In: First International Conference on Semantic Web in Provenance Management, pp. 29–34. (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an OWL rules language. In: Proceedings of WWW 2004, pp. 723–731 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prunckun, H.: Handbook of Scientific Methods of Inquiry for Intelligence Analysis. The Scarecrow Press, Lanham (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Editors of The Lancet: Retraction-Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 375(9713), 445 (2010).
  11. 11.
    Toniolo, A., Norman, T.J., Etuk, A., Cerutti, F., Ouyang, R.W., Srivastava, M., Oren, N., Dropps, T., Allen, J.A., Sullivan, P.: Agent support to reasoning with different types of evidence in intelligence analysis. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2015, pp. 781–789 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wakefield, A., Murch, S., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A., Thomson, M., Harvey, P., Valentine, A., Davies, S., Walker-Smith, J.: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351(9103), 637–641 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations