W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2004

RE: EARL Guideline Pass/Fail Confidence

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:42:56 -0500 (EST)
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: 'Marja-Riitta Koivunen' <marja@annotea.org>, 'Chris Ridpath' <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, 'WAI ER IG List' <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0401290524141.24592@homer.w3.org>

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:

>
>hi marja,
>
>very interesting. i had similar thoughts but on trusting tools rather
>than individuals. i thought, maybe the confidence level might be set to
>be proportional to a benchmarking value of the tool against a test
>suite. of course all that raises questions on how to construct the test
>suite, how to benchmark and how to derive a confidence value from there
>but that is off the point right now.
>
>bottom line is that there might be some sort of algorithm to determine
>the confidence level but essential values for this calculation would
>probably need to come from an external source outside the tool. so who
>finally sets the confidence level for an assertion?

Hi Shadi,

I think this external trust stuff belongs outside EARL itself - it is a much
more general use case in RDF (as Nobu demonstrated). I think there's a case
to be made for having a confidence property in EARL, but I am not yet sure
what makes sense as a range for that property. I certainly think that such a
property in EARL should be used (when relevant) by whoever makes the
assertion.

cheers

Chaals
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2004 05:43:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:42 GMT