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
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:25 GMT