W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2005

RE: Confidence Claims - more discussion

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:27:23 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA521882819611771@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: <shadi@w3.org>, "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>
Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

> So, could one say that the currently employed use case of the 
> earl:confidence values is to express different levels of the 
> pass/fail values? For example, in order to express the following:
> "This test failed for sure" -> validity=fail, confidence=high 
> "This test probably passes" -> validity=pass, 
> confidence=medium "This test may not be applicable" -> 
> validity=NA, confidence=low

I think this is the currently use, and, in this case, the mess is even

What would be the barrier between "fail low" and "pass low"?
Where would "cannotTell" fit? If you have a "pass low" or "fail low"
confidence, is not the same as cannotTell?

> If so, then do we want to continue doing that through the 
> validity/confidence pair or do we rather want to introduce 
> more granuality for validity (for example earl:ProbablyPasses 
> as a subclass of earl:fail)?

IMO it could be the good way:

Pass --> "pass high"
ProblabyPass --> "pass medium"
CannotTell --> "pass low" or "fail low"
ProblabyFail --> "fail medium"
Fail --> "fail high"

Regards again,

Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 12:28:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:52 UTC