Attribute Agreement Analysis Wiki
Statistical packages can calculate a default value (Z score) for cohens Kappa or Fleiss Kappa, which can be converted to a P value. However, even if the P reaches the statistical significance level (usually less than 0.05), this only indicates that the concordance between the evaluators is significantly better than might be expected. The p alone doesn`t tell you if the chord is good enough to have a high prediction value. The growing interest of scientific communities and working groups in Web Semantic as a new way of knowledge management is materializing in a growing number of ontologies that are often publicly available (e.g. B the SWEET ontology of Raskin and Pan (2005) for the organization of the immense knowledge base in earth and environmental sciences). For the implementation of the ontology of the vulnerability in a semantic wiki, we used the SMW platform, an open source free extension of the well-known MediaWiki (also used for the operation of Wikipedia). SMW uses the stability and established usage patterns of the existing MediaWiki system to seamlessly integrate semantic technologies into a wiki (Völkel et al. 2006); Krötzsch et al. 2007). While many semantic wikis are under development, SMW is currently the only one that has been used in large semantic wiki applications and is widely used on public websites (Buffa et al. 2008).
Four key questions constitute the first level “branches” or categories of ontology and correspond to the fundamental abstract structure of the field of knowledge of vulnerability assessments, and thus to the subsequent entry point of the semantic wiki. The four questions are simple but coherent and have been derived from different theories and concepts from a variety of disciplines: (1) Vulnability of what? (2) Vulnerability to what? (3) What framework was used to assess weaknesses? and (4) What methodological approach was used to assess weaknesses? In the following subsections, we present and explain the ontology along these four fundamental questions. When reading, it is important to keep in mind that in the description of ontology we use the language formally, regardless of the jargon in the field and regardless of the fact that, in some cases, the same word (for example.B. “pilot”) can also be used in a particular concept of vulnerability with some meaning. To avoid any misunderstanding, it is therefore important to distinguish between the formal level of ontology and the content of the field of knowledge described in ontology. Ranci, C., M. Migliavacca. 2010.
Social Vulnerability: A Multidimensional Analysis. In social vulnerability in Europe. The new configuration of social risks, Hrsg.C Ranci, 219-249. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. After the dismantling, the new ships made some sort of agreement not to interfere with each other, although the precise agreement was a bit ambiguous and the ships they proposed did not ensure that they obtained a formal oath from the others.   Regardless of this, the Shards separated. Most settled on a planet, but not at least one.  Some decided to leave alone, while others stayed with other fragments.    At that time, Ruin and Preservation created the planet Scadrial, using the non-faine parts of Yolen as a guide.   During the process of developing the ontology of vulnerability assessment and its implementation in a semantic wiki, a number of challenges related to the principles of ontology (Raskin and Pan 2005) became guidelines (see section . .