W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > September 2006

RE: do we want to omit the confidence property?

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:21:14 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA521882819015C3795@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>


> Even though this discussion has come up several times in the 
> past, it is worth a revisit in the light of the latest status 
> of the EARL schema. The issue is that earl:confidence is not 
> specified in any way (not even a recommendation on how to use 
> it) thus making it effectively useless. The only argument for 
> keeping this property in the schema is to have a consistent 
> extension point for this type of information. However, this 
> information will not be interchangeable between tools if 
> there is no guidance on how to use the property.
> The possible directions are:
> 1. keep it as it currently is, even though it is ambiguous 2. 
> drop the property as a whole until there is enough interest 
> 3. invest time to define a proper usage for the property

+1 for the second option.
can live with the third, but think we should be aware that it will consume several time and resources.
can live with the first if we don't allow multiple validations (Chaals' proposal).

My arguments are basically:

If you're sure --> pass or fail
If you don't --> cannot tell

Whatever shade of meaning you add to cannot tell (confidence) could easily take us to an interoperability nightmare, especially if we don't have a very well usage definition.



Carlos Iglesias

CTIC Foundation
Science and Technology Park of Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, Spain 

phone: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 11:21:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:54 UTC