- From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:27:23 +0200
- 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 greater: 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, CI.
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 12:28:09 UTC