RE: Confidence Claims - more discussion

> 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.